4 ms·

From the readme.md > A new compiled version is released under an MIT license every month on the 16th. What does than even mean? Is it equivalent to what we us

From the readme.md > A new compiled version is released under an MIT license every month on the 16th. What does than even mean? Is it equivalent to what we use to call "freeware". Is it legal to modify the binaries?

dotancohen 11mo ago
I'm not sure about MIT, but the GNU license specifically requires the application licensed to be available in source code (human readable and editable form or similar verbiage).
- tom_ 11mo ago
  The MIT licence does not require this.
  - ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
    I'm not an expert, but I very much doubt this. The FSF calls it a "free license" [1] and I don't think they would if they didn't make the source code available. Source code available is necessary but not sufficient for Free software, see [2] > Freedoms 1 and 3 require source code to be available because studying and modifying software without its source code can range from highly impractical to nearly impossible. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Expat https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Expat [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software EDIT Oh sorry, you mean for the LICENSE to be available. Never mind then.
    - adastra22 11mo ago
      You can compile MIT software and distribute the binary while saying “fuck you” to anyone who asks for the source. You are thinking of copyleft (e.g. GPL)
      - ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
        If that were true, the FSF wouldn't call it a free license.
        fn-mote 11mo ago
        You should have linked the MIT License on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) instead of Free Software. The license is only three paragraphs long. You can see it does not contain text supporting your claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
        ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
        Well, I'm confused.
        spauldo 11mo ago
        The FSF has written extensively on why (in their opinion) you should prefer copyleft licenses over non-copyleft licenses, but they don't require a license to be copyleft in order to be considered free. It's worth spending a bit of time on their site to understand their point of view. Just be careful not to drink too much of the Kool-Aid or you'll become one of those annoying people who never shut up about the GPL on forums.
        squigz 11mo ago
        Don't listen to spauldo, GP. Drink the delicious Kool Aid that is free software. Bring that joy to everyone else you find.
        xorcist 11mo ago
        > you should prefer copyleft licenses over non-copyleft licenses, For most, but not all, software. Stallman did famously argue for libvorbis, which you may know as the ogg codec used mostly by games and spotify, to be licensed under BSD instead of the (L)GPL.
    - PunchyHamster 11mo ago
      And you're entirely wrong. MIT just require attribution, not giving the source code. That is why companies and corpo programmers LOVE BSD/MIT code, they can freely steal I mean use it in their for-profit products without giving anything back but some bit of text hidden in about box
Ekaros 11mo ago
Broadly. You can do anything you want with MIT licensed software as long as you include the copyright and warranty notice. I suppose with "freeware" technically you could be prevent from redistributing or selling it. As there is no hard definition on that term.

dotancohen 11mo ago

I'm not sure about MIT, but the GNU license specifically requires the application licensed to be available in source code (human readable and editable form or similar verbiage).

tom_ 11mo ago
The MIT licence does not require this.
- ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
  I'm not an expert, but I very much doubt this. The FSF calls it a "free license" [1] and I don't think they would if they didn't make the source code available. Source code available is necessary but not sufficient for Free software, see [2] > Freedoms 1 and 3 require source code to be available because studying and modifying software without its source code can range from highly impractical to nearly impossible. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Expat https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Expat [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software EDIT Oh sorry, you mean for the LICENSE to be available. Never mind then.
  - adastra22 11mo ago
    You can compile MIT software and distribute the binary while saying “fuck you” to anyone who asks for the source. You are thinking of copyleft (e.g. GPL)
    - ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
      If that were true, the FSF wouldn't call it a free license.
      - fn-mote 11mo ago
        You should have linked the MIT License on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) instead of Free Software. The license is only three paragraphs long. You can see it does not contain text supporting your claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
        ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
        Well, I'm confused.
        spauldo 11mo ago
        The FSF has written extensively on why (in their opinion) you should prefer copyleft licenses over non-copyleft licenses, but they don't require a license to be copyleft in order to be considered free. It's worth spending a bit of time on their site to understand their point of view. Just be careful not to drink too much of the Kool-Aid or you'll become one of those annoying people who never shut up about the GPL on forums.
        squigz 11mo ago
        Don't listen to spauldo, GP. Drink the delicious Kool Aid that is free software. Bring that joy to everyone else you find.
        xorcist 11mo ago
        > you should prefer copyleft licenses over non-copyleft licenses, For most, but not all, software. Stallman did famously argue for libvorbis, which you may know as the ogg codec used mostly by games and spotify, to be licensed under BSD instead of the (L)GPL.
  - PunchyHamster 11mo ago
    And you're entirely wrong. MIT just require attribution, not giving the source code. That is why companies and corpo programmers LOVE BSD/MIT code, they can freely steal I mean use it in their for-profit products without giving anything back but some bit of text hidden in about box

Ekaros 11mo ago

Broadly. You can do anything you want with MIT licensed software as long as you include the copyright and warranty notice. I suppose with "freeware" technically you could be prevent from redistributing or selling it. As there is no hard definition on that term.