3 ms·

To be clear; I don't consider GPL to be completely free software. I also don't think all software needs to be free. I also don't think all software needs to be

To be clear; I don't consider GPL to be completely free software. I also don't think all software needs to be free. I also don't think all software needs to be a gift. (But then I just said the same thing twice.) The part that I care about is which direction the default [default definition?] shifts. In my perfect world, more code would be MIT not GPL. But in my perfect world, the GPL wouldn't be useful in practice. The world is far from perfect.

lelanthran 9mo ago
> To be clear; I don't consider GPL to be completely free software. Well, yeah. I think we agree. That's why I said it is transactional - you get software in exchange for any future potential improvement you make to it. It's a transaction. MIT is not transactional, it's charity - you get software without having to trade anything for it. If people make their software MIT or GPL, they should not complain when it is used in a way that they are unhappy with. With MIT, it can be used in almost any way the user wants, including closing it off, and depriving the community of improvements.