3 ms·

Then what's the practical difference between that and MIT/BSD licensing?

• BenjiWiebe 1y ago
  Obviously, GPL allows you (and others) to request source code when Google uses a modified version of your code to make millions. It doesn't force you to go after them. With MIT, you Google would have no obligation at all to provide anything.
  • lenerdenator 1y ago
    > It doesn't force you to go after them. That's just it, though. If it doesn't carry any sort of possibility of being enforced, well... why bother? I could just go with the easier-to-understand license, like someone upthread mentioned. If we're going to see the promised tech ecosystem that GPL's authors aimed to provide, we're going to need more people to take it seriously. Most people don't want to take it seriously, and if that's the case, we're better off if they just went with MIT/BSD.
• pessimizer 1y ago
  There's no difference for you. It's your code. Choosing a particular license can't restrict how you yourself use it. An absurdly common business model is for you to relicense to BSD/MIT/proprietary for a particular customer who pays you to; it's the same code, you're just not obligating that customer to share their changes if they redistribute it. The GPL is a statement you're making about the rights that other people are granted when it comes to your code. It's not a personal pledge. Exactly like every other license btw; they aren't oaths. You're also not required to police or sue people who break your license. It's your code.
• pwg 1y ago
  > Then what's the practical difference between that and MIT/BSD licensing? Very simplified differences: GPL: you shared the code with others, those others, if they modify your code, must continue to share their changes with others MIT: you shared the code with others, those others can do as they please, including not sharing any changes they make to the code with anyone