3 ms·
I think josinalvo has a point. Can we at least agree it's not the most likely wording that the FSF would have chosen? So while "discourage" might be too strong,
by xorcist 12y ago
I think josinalvo has a point. Can we at least agree it's not the most likely wording that the FSF would have chosen? So while "discourage" might be too strong, it's likely not a favorable way to put it. Perhaps a pull request would be welcome?
- Karunamon 12y agoSure! But consider that the whole point of choosealicense is to be non-judgmental and to explain facts, and the facts are not in question here. Saying that the GPL is more restrictive is not some slight against the GPL, it is a forthright explanation of its attributes. Furthermore, the FSF are precisely the last people I'd go to for a forthright and non judgmental description of the GPL and its purpose. The FSF is at least a primary source in this matter, and furthermore an advocacy group.
- belorn 12y agoIf the point of choosealicense is to be non-judgmental, they should use non-judgmental language to do so. So lets change the "I want it simple and permissive" text to "I want attribution. The MIT License only requirements is that users provide attribution back to you and don’t hold you liable." Its a forthright and non judgmental description of the MIT license and its purpose, and it matches perfectly with the style of the GPL description.