4 ms·

If that were true, the FSF wouldn't call it a free license.

fn-mote 10mo 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 10mo ago
  Well, I'm confused.
  - spauldo 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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.
      - spauldo 10mo ago
        True, there are exceptions. Stallman thought strategically. Having a free-but-non-copyleft licensed reference implementation is necessary if you are trying to wrest dominance from an established but proprietary standard. But I'm willing to bet that he'd have pushed for GPL if he wasn't trying to topple MP3.
  - lelanthran 10mo ago
    It's actually very simple: MIT/BSD licenses are pro-business - any business can take the product, change a few lines and redistribute the result without making their changes available. GPL is pro-user - anyone who gets the source, makes changes, and then redistributes the result has to make their changed sources available as well.
lelanthran 10mo ago
> If that were true, the FSF wouldn't call it a free license. It is true; the license gives you the source, to do with as you please, including closing it off. Famously, Microsoft included BSD licensed tools in Windows since the 90s and did not distribute the sources! And that is completely legal. If you want to force the users to distribute their changes to your open source product when they are redistributing the product, you need to use GPL.

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 10mo ago
Well, I'm confused.
- spauldo 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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.
    - spauldo 10mo ago
      True, there are exceptions. Stallman thought strategically. Having a free-but-non-copyleft licensed reference implementation is necessary if you are trying to wrest dominance from an established but proprietary standard. But I'm willing to bet that he'd have pushed for GPL if he wasn't trying to topple MP3.
- lelanthran 10mo ago
  It's actually very simple: MIT/BSD licenses are pro-business - any business can take the product, change a few lines and redistribute the result without making their changes available. GPL is pro-user - anyone who gets the source, makes changes, and then redistributes the result has to make their changed sources available as well.

lelanthran 10mo ago

> If that were true, the FSF wouldn't call it a free license. It is true; the license gives you the source, to do with as you please, including closing it off. Famously, Microsoft included BSD licensed tools in Windows since the 90s and did not distribute the sources! And that is completely legal. If you want to force the users to distribute their changes to your open source product when they are redistributing the product, you need to use GPL.