4 ms·

Well, the question is, best for what? If the goal is to maximize the amount of Free (as in libre) software, then the GPLv3 is arguably the best choice. If the g

by krig 13y ago

Well, the question is, best for what? If the goal is to maximize the amount of Free (as in libre) software, then the GPLv3 is arguably the best choice. If the goal is to provide liberty, as in letting people choose what to do with the code for themselves, then MIT might be a better choice. The GPL is infectous by choice: If some part of your project is under the GPL, the whole has to be licensed under GPL. This is not the case with the MIT license.

_delirium 13y ago
If the goal is to provide liberty, as in letting people choose what to do with the code for themselves, then MIT might be a better choice. This really depends on whose liberty and what kind of liberty you have in mind. From a GNUish perspective, the MIT license gives you the liberty to... restrict downstream users' liberty to modify the software and distribute the modified versions. The GPL restricts your liberty to restrict other people's liberty in that manner. Which is more free in some kind of libertarian sense probably depends on what you consider the status of copyright in the first place. If you think the ability to restrict downstream users through the copyright system is a kind of natural right (perhaps by analogy to property), then the GPL is adding restrictions on your ability to exercise that right, and MIT/BSD licenses are freer. If, on the other hand, you think the ability to restrict downstream users' distribution through copyright is an artificial privilege granted by the State, then the GPL constraining your exercise of it is not really a loss to liberty.
davexunit 13y ago
The GPL is not "infectuous" or "viral" or any of that nonsense. The GPL does not spread on its own. Your code isn't going to catch copyleft by sitting next to some free software.
- krig 13y ago
  Ah, sorry for being unclear, I wasn't aware that this was such a loaded term. I am not against the GPL, and I don't mean that in a negative way. I meant that in the sense that it dictates conditions for the "combined work", not only the source code directly under the license.
  - davexunit 13y ago
    It's okay. It's just most often used as a pejorative term by people who dislike copyleft.

by krig 13y ago

_delirium 13y ago

If the goal is to provide liberty, as in letting people choose what to do with the code for themselves, then MIT might be a better choice. This really depends on whose liberty and what kind of liberty you have in mind. From a GNUish perspective, the MIT license gives you the liberty to... restrict downstream users' liberty to modify the software and distribute the modified versions. The GPL restricts your liberty to restrict other people's liberty in that manner. Which is more free in some kind of libertarian sense probably depends on what you consider the status of copyright in the first place. If you think the ability to restrict downstream users through the copyright system is a kind of natural right (perhaps by analogy to property), then the GPL is adding restrictions on your ability to exercise that right, and MIT/BSD licenses are freer. If, on the other hand, you think the ability to restrict downstream users' distribution through copyright is an artificial privilege granted by the State, then the GPL constraining your exercise of it is not really a loss to liberty.

davexunit 13y ago

The GPL is not "infectuous" or "viral" or any of that nonsense. The GPL does not spread on its own. Your code isn't going to catch copyleft by sitting next to some free software.

krig 13y ago
Ah, sorry for being unclear, I wasn't aware that this was such a loaded term. I am not against the GPL, and I don't mean that in a negative way. I meant that in the sense that it dictates conditions for the "combined work", not only the source code directly under the license.
- davexunit 13y ago
  It's okay. It's just most often used as a pejorative term by people who dislike copyleft.