4 ms·
Doesn't that bring us right back to GPL family licenses?
by ahepp 1y ago
Doesn't that bring us right back to GPL family licenses?
- pabs3 1y agoThe GPL doesn't require contributing back, only contributing forward to users.
- kweingar 1y agoWith GPL you don't have to actively work to upstream your patches, but in practice you can't withhold your patches from upstream. If you add a feature, they get to have it too. Unlike permissively licensed software, where you can add proprietary features.
- pabs3 1y agoDepends how savvy your users are, and what your users lose if they do send your patches upstream. For example, GRSec or RedHat both drop you as a customer (so no security updates) if you republish their patches publicly. Or a paid iPhone app's users probably wouldn't know what source code is, let alone where/how/bother to republish it for the benefit of other users.
- ahepp 1y agoIt seems pretty difficult to legally hide useful code from a GPL upstream. But, if the argument is that the GPL is too permissive to achieve what the author wants, why on earth was the author using the MIT license?