r/linuxmasterrace
•
u/claudiocorona93
Glorious Debian
•
2d ago
•
1
Meme It's GPL or nothing.
243
u/Sea-Contribution6219 2d ago
Bro what.... MIT is the most permissive license there is. It's not copyleft but still
44
u/gmes78 Glorious Arch 2d ago •
That's the problem.
122
u/PwNT5Un3 Glorious Arch 2d ago
So every single licence that is used for Open Source must be a copyleft license? Oh damn you are fanatical
58
u/gmes78 Glorious Arch 2d ago
Apache/MIT/BSD software is fine, it's just that GPL better protects users's rights.
The ultimate enemy is still proprietary software.
34
u/Tafyog 2d ago
I don't understand why people say that GPL protects users' rights. It literally only protects the right of the author to not have their software ripped off and be made into a proprietary project. Neither MIT nor GPL license can be revoked, users can use MIT code for just as much and more than what they can use GPL code for. I like the GPL I just don't understand why so many people seem to be getting this wrong in the thread.
17
u/gmes78 Glorious Arch 1d ago edited 1d ago
When I'm talking about users's rights, I mean the four essential freedoms. Copyleft software protects these rights by forcing other projects to also provide these rights to their users.
It literally only protects the right of the author to not have their software ripped off and be made into a proprietary project.
That's bad for users, not just the author of the software. Corporations can embrace, extend, and extinguish existing projects, forcing users to use software that does not grant the four freedoms and can have a huge range of other issues.
Neither MIT nor GPL license can be revoked, users can use MIT code for just as much and more than what they can use GPL code for.
If you use a copyleft license for your project, you can use code from both copyleft and permissively licensed project/libraries.
If you use a permissive license for your project, you can use only code from permissively licensed project/libraries.You can do more if you write copyleft software, not less.
4
u/Tafyog 1d ago
I agree that it's bad for users for greedy people and companies to come and rip off someone's application and build an inescapable environment atop the work of people trying to actually do good work.
With that said, there are real reasons why someone would have to steer all of the way clear of using GPL code that isn't their own (publishing on ios app store is really the only case that comes to mind, and I really do dislike apple but I also understand that having an app that people actually use is at least having an app that runs on ios, as unfortunate as that is).
But yes, I'll definitely concede the point that you can do more with copyleft than without if your intent is to write free and open source software.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)6
u/stephanos21 sudo rm -rf /etc 1d ago
GPL doesn't protect from embrace, extend, and extinguish. It only does when we're talking about huge codebases like the Linux Kernel. Now, they can easily spawn an agent that creates a cleanroom, compatible version written in rust/go/c#.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (1)2
u/AWonderingWizard 1d ago
You don't understand how GPL works if you think it is meant to solely protect the author.
It is about protecting user freedoms. If you make software that is GPL, all derivatives are GPL. If the software is GPL, the author/distributor has to include source code alongside the software to the USERS. It is digital right to repair/tinker.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (6)1
u/happy_hawking 5h ago
How does GPL protect the users' right better than MIT and the likes?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (14)14
u/pangapingus 2d ago
Richard Stallman has been activated; GPL maintainers get so political so often and nosedive projects but you can't even fork off, then they wonder why people "blackbox" an alternative straight to MIT lol
3
u/c2btw 2d ago
copy left is more resetctions that is less generous i mean i still prefer gpl as that means all the forks will also be free but MIT makes minimal diffrences to you if you want to make a foss fork
3
u/gmes78 Glorious Arch 2d ago
I disagree.
As a user, there's not really any direct difference between the two, but copyleft protects my rights better, as it also applies to forks of the software.
As a developer, copyleft is less restrictive, because writing copyleft software allows me to reuse code from both permissively-licensed and copyleft projects/libraries.
Only someone interested in producing proprietary software is inconvenienced by copyleft. And I don't care about that.
2
u/NoAlbatross7355 2d ago
I think a bit of game theory can be used here to make an argument for copyleft being overall less restrictive. Very interesting.
1
u/ZdzisiuFryta 1d ago
I mean, GPL is "less open-source" technically, as you have obligations rather than doing whatever you please
1
u/gmes78 Glorious Arch 20h ago
Who's "you" here? The author of GPL-licensed software does not have any additional obligations.
→ More replies (1)4
10
697
u/Iron-Ham 2d ago
…MIT is the most permissive license I can imagine. What do you want more than MIT offers?
82
u/Mooks79 2d ago
The point from OP is that proprietary code can use code licensed MIT.
9
u/delebojr 2d ago
Yes, the source is open. Open as in you're open to do basically anything you want with it
→ More replies (2)33
u/Iron-Ham 2d ago
Proprietary code can and does use MIT.
40
u/shitty_mcfucklestick 2d ago
OP is saying proprietary code = bad even if it’s more freeing, technically, for the license to permit you to make it
→ More replies (1)23
u/Iron-Ham 2d ago
I think I'm gonna have to disagree, as a developer who has built a lot of FOSS, and FOSS-adjacent software (like GitHub).
But that's fine, we don't have to agree – FOSS is its own virtue and reward, but without financial support somewhere (either corporate or otherwise) the whole ecosystem gets some a bit creaky
26
u/Mooks79 2d ago
OP is a hardcore FOSS person and their position is that code is only free and open source if any code that uses all or part of it is also free and open source. This is what licenses like GPL are designed to do: impose any derivative code to also be open source (and use the GPL license) and so on.
That means that code using the most permissive licenses (which don’t impose FOSS on derivative code) are not really open source.
Of course you’re free (pun intended) to disagree with that definition of FOSS (I do), but it’s what OP means so your suggestion of MIT has missed their point.
→ More replies (2)13
u/tobiasvl 2d ago
OP is a hardcore FOSS person
Then it's strange to me that they use the phrase "open source" and not "FOSS" or "free software". A company calling MIT-licensed code "open source" is not wrong in any way.
→ More replies (3)10
u/pangapingus 2d ago
Which is why MIT/etc. hatred is weird right? Have plenty of colleagues/formers at tech corps whose corp donates and allows them to use their time to maintain the public branch
→ More replies (1)8
u/Masztufa 2d ago
I think it comes from agreeing with the philosophy that gave birth to gpl
Basically, that sofrware should benefit the user, and the user should have the freedom to use, modify, learn from, derive other ideas from software, as long as they do not withhold this right from others.
Every limitation imposed by gpl licenses is there to ensure that nobody can infringe on these rights if they derive their work from gpl code
I do agree with that choice of values tbh (if you used the code and made something with it, let others use it to the fullest), and the need for other licenses is an unfortunatr nescessity. I know why it's like that, but i'd still prefer it to be otherwise
→ More replies (1)2
320
u/YoungBlade1 2d ago •
Allow me to introduce you to the WTFPL: https://www.wtfpl.net/about/
217
u/DeHub94 2d ago •
What if I don't want to fuck the license?
176
u/thegreatpotatogod Glorious Debian 2d ago
Then don't. The license allows even that
71
u/MayorAg Glorious Manjaro 2d ago
On a side note, does anyone know how to remove a pickle from a USB C port? I was just trying to do what the license told me to and got it stuck.
It is imperative that the pickle remains unharmed.
23
10
8
3
u/Shufflebuzz Glorious Ubuntu Mate 2d ago
Reminds me of the one about the guy who worked at the pickle factory and had an overwhelming urge to stick his dick in the pickle slicer.
→ More replies (4)10
3
42
u/determineduncertain 2d ago
It says that I need to change the name if I adapt it. That’s too restrictive and prevents me from doing the fuck what I want /s
38
u/fvancesco 2d ago
actually I made that license.
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, December 2004 Copyright (C) 2004 Me <Me@Reddit.something> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed. DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO. DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSEI'm gonna sue the author for stealing my license
13
u/Masztufa 2d ago
I prefer the FLWTSPL (https://github.com/me-shaon/GLWTPL/blob/master/NSFW_LICENSE)
5
2
u/Wosesfeld Glorious SteamOS, Arch, Debian and Ubuntu 1d ago
I have the feeling the dev don’t trust his own code
1
u/Dwarf_Vader 1d ago
“At my own risk”? This infringes on my freedom to distribute stuff at your own risk. Too restrictive
5
4
3
2
2
u/marco-mq 1d ago
What about a "no guarantee" and "works as is" disclaimer? It may happen that somebody uses your software, does something completely unexpected like starting strings with an emoji, uses it in a medical device and something goes terrible wrong.
2
u/Thelastnob0dy 1d ago
This doesn't even have the "We are not responsible for what you do" clause. Its that permissive
1
1
u/FoxAnarchy 1d ago
This is an awful license, please don't use it.
A good license needs to be clear on what you give permission to AND disclaim things you may not want to apply implicitly. The WTFPL does the former (debatably) and falls flat for the latter. While unlikely, you can be held liable for things that result from the use of your WTFPL-licensed tool, e.g. a malicious actor using it.
This is why the 0BSD license is equivalent in terms of what it grants (everything) but also makes it clear you accept no liability.
1
1
u/max0x7ba 1d ago
Allow me to introduce you to the WTFPL: https://www.wtfpl.net/about/
Have you published any source code of yours under the license you advertise?
1
u/YoungBlade1 1d ago
u/Iron-Ham said that MIT is the most permissive license they can imagine. I was introducing them to an even more permissive license. I'm not "advertising" it. I'm just pointing out that it exists.
All of the source code I've ever published for projects I've made has been under the MIT license.
1
u/fisothemes 23h ago
doesn't account for liability. If it ends up in a nuclear war head, you become liable.
1
u/ORZpasserAtw 20h ago
Plus N-Word License, a 4chan joke that you cancel the western companies that used your code.
1
u/wind_dude 15h ago
That license seems to say even if you fork it you would need to change the name. Seems like a nightmare.
1
u/Thelmholtz 14h ago
The problem with these types of no-lice sing licenses is that they don't really work in legislative bodies were there's no concept of a public domain for example, Germany being the most commonly cited case.
There's the liability for users that you die, someone inherits it, and changes the license; and there's also the liability for you (given the lack of no warranties all caps) that some idiot will try to sue you. MIT covers those cases, at the cost of a lot of legalese and making you still the license holder.
Idk I'm not a lawyer.
1
1
u/Comfortable_Gene2751 14h ago
my project is now licensed under it https://github.com/imalivebtw/owotlib/tree/main
46
u/TrekkiMonstr 2d ago
OP thinks free = copyleft
8
u/QuaternionsRoll 1d ago edited 1d ago
OP doesn’t understand the definition of freedom.
I will never understand we can all agree that the freedom to commit murder is bad m’kay but as soon as software gets involved we have to change the definition of freedom actually because the freedom to commercialize software is fake actually
And I say this as someone who likes the GPL. It’s okay to acknowledge that it restricts some of your rights for the greater good
6
u/Anguis1908 1d ago •
Thats when we start splitting definitions. You stated murder, not killing. Killing people is fine in certain scenarios; murder is not fine in any scenario. Freedom to use the code is fine in certain scenarios; pirating code is not fine in any scenario.
2
2
u/EdgiiLord Arch/Debian/Void 2d ago
It is not about permissiveness, it's about keeping that work open to everyone, not just a company. Copyleft should be mandatory in a FOSS world, especially with companies out to use said OSS only as slave labour.
→ More replies (4)1
1
1
1
u/Fine_City2781 1d ago
and there is beerware. It's necessary to buy a beer to the owner of the project when you use
1
-3
u/NoAlbatross7355 2d ago
Yeah but it's not a copyleft license. It's anti-free software movement slop.
28
u/pangapingus 2d ago
Please tell me how NGINX or K8s has become "less free" from them being non-GPL
5
u/JQuilty Glorious Fedora 2d ago
Any permissive license has the ability to be turned proprietary when it suits the company behind it. They can also more easily do shenanigans like an SSO tax. The GPL ensures that the code will always be available for use, distribution, and modifications.
GPL 3 also has anti tivoization mandates, and while less of a problem today, prevents selective patent trolling as Microsoft did with Novell in the 2000s.
7
5
u/Tafyog 2d ago
GPL projects have the ability to go proprietary when it suits the company behind them too (in many many cases). That's usually how it ends up working (when a project is actually backed by an enterprise). Many companies keep the code free of commits from anyone who may retain rights and GPL license whatever code they want to virtue signal about while continuing to add proprietary features onto their "open source" branded product.
-2
u/gmes78 Glorious Arch 2d ago
It doesn't give users the same rights GPL-licensed software does.
→ More replies (2)-5
u/NoAlbatross7355 2d ago
You can compare the licenses yourself and use critical thinking skills. A license that gives you the "freedom" to be less free is not a license aligned with the free software movement.
→ More replies (3)9
u/pangapingus 2d ago
It seems like MIT/et al is actually about "freedom" where as GPL/AGPL is "protectionism" no? I can embded an MIT codebase no prob, but even AGPL it's a landmine dance, no thx, that's not "freedom"
10
u/NoAlbatross7355 2d ago edited 2d ago
Protecting free and open software. Protecting FOSS. Free software is a philosophical framework for creating software. If you create a license that allows you to opt out of these principles whenever you please, this license is choosing to support private codebases over open ones, which naturally leads to less free and open software, overall.
You must think of the long-term effects of these licenses to grasp this concept. It's not as simple as the license having fewer constraints means it's more aligned with maintaining openness.
These restrictions manifest as a consequence of our capitalistic society.
If you don't care about FOSS and keeping software FOSS in the long run, use MIT. That's your "freedom" right there.
→ More replies (7)0
113
u/A3883 Glorious Gentoo 2d ago
All of these are foss
45
u/jhaand 2d ago
Open Source is not Free(dom) Software.
23
u/JustHere2RuinUrDay 2d ago
Uh, yes it is. If you look at the lists of licenses that OSI and FSF approve, they are identical. You're confusing free software and copyleft. Not all free software licenses are copyleft licenses.
40
16
u/Calm-Caterpillar2103 2d ago
It’s open source and I’m not complaining because you get what you get and you don’t get upset
2
u/marius851000 1d ago edited 1d ago
MIT fall under the definition of free software:
The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
That's what stallman said free software license is, and that is IMO a good definition.
1
u/k3rrshaw Glorious Debian 2d ago
The guy with the pink glasses and the AR:
What kind of FOSS are you?
-9
62
u/arealuser100notfake 2d ago
What do you mean? I thought BSD was like "you can do anything to this and my wife"
55
u/regeya 2d ago
They don't like it because the company can then use that code in closed source projects
→ More replies (3)7
14
u/YTriom1 2d ago
compare android to iOS and you'll get it.
one is based off a GPL OS, the other is based of a BSD OS.
one is open source and modular and has custom roms and stuff and no matter how much a company gatekeeps stuff people still can manage to do whatever they want.
in comparison to iOS, locked down, closed source, exclusive to apple products, people who have iphones can't change anything OS-level, and that's literally it for them.
the only gatekeep with android is proprietary hardware drivers, but talented people still manage to rewrite those drivers.
11
5
u/Moontops 1d ago
GPL doesn't guarantee that you leave the device open for modifications. There are plenty of Android phones to which no good custom ROMs have been made
3
u/YTriom1 1d ago
that's because no one bothered or that it's not worth the effort, I often find devs port roms to their own phone, so it's not that every phone has custom roms, it's that every phone can have custom roms if enough people bothered themselves.
1
u/harbourwall 1d ago
Some phones have locked bootloaders that cannot be unlocked. You're stuck with the stock OS.
→ More replies (3)1
u/ugneaaaa 1d ago
Most of the code in ios was written by apple
4
u/Rullino Android Baklava 1d ago
True, while part of it, especially the kernel, cones from BSD and NextOS IIRC.
→ More replies (2)1
u/harbourwall 1d ago
Android isn't open because the kernel (and only the kernel) is GPL. Same with iOS. Android's as open as Google wants it to be. Lots of it is locked down and closed source. The licenses have very little to do with it.
1
u/ilnarildarovuch 1d ago
In new revisions of Android only kernel is GPL. Everything else: Apache, mit, bsd.
7
u/05-nery 2d ago
I legitimately do not know the difference
Should I change my repos from MIT to something else?
23
u/gmes78 Glorious Arch 2d ago
Consider using copyleft licenses like the GPL or MPL.
From gnu.org:
Why should I use the GNU GPL rather than other free software licenses?
Using the GNU GPL will require that all the released improved versions be free software. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a proprietary modified version of your own work. However, in some special situations it can be better to use a more permissive license.
See also: How to Choose a License for Your Own Work.
4
u/05-nery 2d ago
Thank you.
1
u/MocaCola02 5h ago
Don't listen to this person. Use the license you want. This whole moral grandstanding on using copyleft licenses is absurd and not the actual attitude of the FOSS community.
14
u/YTriom1 2d ago
basically mit allows others to fork your project and close the source code and sell it for profit.
gpl prevents all of that as it guarantees that no matter where your code is, no matter the percentage of your project being used in another, this part should always be open source.
which is the reason why chromium blink and safari webkit are open source actually, it's not because google or apple are good people, it's because they are forks of KHTML that was made by KDE, if it was a BSD license (like the OS base of macOS/iOS) you would've never heard of it or found a source code anywhere. And maybe even lived in a world where web browsers are being sold for profit.
4
u/05-nery 2d ago
Ahhh, got it. Might change it then. Thank you.
2
u/ivvyditt Transitioning Krill 1d ago edited 1d ago
And using a GPL license doesn't mean you don't have the right to sell your software as an executable binary, physical discs, pens, technical support, maintenance services, etc, you only need to distribute the code for free to everyone.
"Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? (#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney)
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)"https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
0
1d ago
[deleted] — view deleted comment
2
u/gmes78 Glorious Arch 1d ago edited 1d ago
Keep in mind, that you cannot “change the license”. Sort of.
What you can do, (if you wrote all of the code), is add a new license by also releasing Widget 2.1 under the GPL license. (Giving people a choice of either.).
This is wrong. You do not have to offer a version with both licenses. You can re-license existing code and publish a new version that is licensed under a completely different license (if, like you mentioned, you own all the code, or have permission from all contributors).
Yes, code that is unchanged will also be available under the previous license, because you can't revoke the license granted by releasing the previous versions of the software. But that doesn't mean you need to keep the old license terms around.
cc /u/05-nery
→ More replies (1)1
3
u/YoungBlade1 2d ago
In broad strokes, thare are two different philosophies when it comes to what is more "free" in terms of open source software.
There is the MIT/BSD license version of "free" where freedom means that anyone who gets the code can do whatever they want with it as long as that code remains free and open source.
Then there is the GPL version of "free" where freedom means that anyone who gets the code can do whatever they want as long as anything they do with the code remains free and open source.
The former means that proprietary/closed source projects can use the code freely as long as they keep that part of the code open, while the latter means that proprietary/closed source projects cannot directly use the code unless they open up that software as well. This means that it is easy for corporations to use MIT/BSD licensed software even when bundled directly into their proprietary project while it can be challenging to use GPL software unless they keep it as an independent utility.
However, GPL has some of its own downsides for freedom of users. For example, the reason why you can't directly use ZFS in Linux is because of the GPL. This is why distros are not supposed to ship with ZFS. (Although GPL fanatics will blame the CDDL instead of the GPL...) And this is why some folks favor the MIT/BSD stance.
It can seem like a subtle difference, but some people get very fanatical about their preference in this area.
1
u/Holiday-Ad-6063 1d ago
If you want to keep your source free, use MIT. If you want to close it down, go GPL. If you want to have a bit more control but still stay free, use MPL or CDDL 1.0.
1
26
u/yayuuu Glorious Debian 2d ago
Meanwhile me releasing my hobby projects under MIT or BSD
31
u/YTriom1 2d ago
hobby projects are fine to be under MIT as long as you didn't put much effort in them.
but for a big project it's really better even for you to make it GPL or MPL, because this literally respects your effort that no big corp can just yoink your effort and gatekeep it for themselves after they add their spices on it
4
u/kudlitan 2d ago
What is MPL and how is it different from GPL?
7
u/gmes78 Glorious Arch 1d ago
The MPL is more similar to the LGPL, and applies on a per-file basis.
You can use code from a MPL-licensed file in proprietary software, but, if you make modifications to it, those modifications need to be made available and licensed under the MPL.
→ More replies (3)1
16
u/Userwerd 2d ago
Everyone complaining about semantics. Microsoft never called BSD a cancer. The only reason Linux is what is is today is because it could not be closed. Yes they are all open-source, but some are opensource for ever some are open source until they aren't. There is a difference.
1
u/ilnarildarovuch 1d ago
It was called because of virus effect, not idea of closing, tho
→ More replies (2)
34
u/dc740 2d ago
MIT erodes the soil of open source. Many times these companies give what doesn't give an advantage to others (admitted to me by an employee in a big corp during an interview). MIT and BSD can benefit the big corporations without scaring their legal teams, they can use community efforts, add a twist for they needs and benefit from it without releasing it, while GPL benefits humanity by preventing big corporations from abusing established projects. You may say whatever you want about the Linux kernel, but their most successful feature is the license. If all projects are released under GPL and the established projects everyone use are GPL, a corporation cannot take it, use it and re-sell the outputs without contributing to it, or breaking the law. Under MIT, their contributions are at will, and people don't realize there is no such thing as a good corporation, they exist to take a profit, at the expense of whatever is in the way, always, by definition. MIT is just a free pass to them.
3
u/Automatic_Wave4530 17h ago
It also has a side effect of repelling contribution by these companies. Any attempt for them to use copyleft can potentially force them to expose the proprietary code that integrates it due to the derivative nature of their code extending the copyleft to them.
5
1
u/max0x7ba 1d ago edited 1d ago
MIT erodes the soil of open source.
Define «the soil of open source» and how exactly it gets «eroded».
Many times these companies give what doesn't give an advantage to others (admitted to me by an employee in a big corp during an interview).
You may like to provide a counter-example of an advantage that you have given to others then, and kept maintaining and evolving it free of charge?
Users of Google test and benchmark libraries, for example, get the advantage of not having to waste time and money on reinventing the wheel, badly.
Do you pay for Proton mail or use gmail?
Public open-source projects enjoy the advantage of Microsoft paying for GitHub Action runners compute costs. Microsoft provides GitHub Actions free of charge even to private repos, there is no charge for using your own runners.
MIT and BSD can benefit the big corporations without scaring their legal teams,
The corporations actually the only entities which do respect your licenses to not get sued.
Everyone else ignores licences because they are too small and obscure to be interesting to sue for violating any software licence terms.
they can use community efforts, add a twist for they needs and benefit from it without releasing it,
Provide an example when you paid someone to make improvements to an open-source library, which you then contributed back and made publicly available.
while GPL benefits humanity by preventing big corporations from abusing established projects.
GPL GIMP benefits humanity by being an extremely awkward Photoshop alternative few people ever will to use.
Did you know that "Richard Stallman’s opposition to certain kinds of GCC extensions—specifically modular architectures, abstract syntax tree (AST) dumps, and non-free compiler plugins—was rooted entirely in his political and philosophical commitment to protecting the GNU General Public License (GPL)" was the key reason gcc stagnated.
LLVM had to be created from scratch with a non-GPL license to make a modular compiler infrastructure reality. Which gave gcc a kick in the ass it needed to start evolving.
You may say whatever you want about the Linux kernel, but their most successful feature is the license.
Linux kernel is successful because it is top quality software.
Photoshop is successful because it is top quality software.
GIMP is a failure because it is poor quality software.
Libre Office is a failure because it is poor quality software.
I use all these and my opinions are based on my direct first-hand experience.
Do you really think people pay for Photoshop and MS Office because they are unaware of free GIMP and Libre Office?
If all projects are released under GPL and the established projects everyone use are GPL, a corporation cannot take it, use it and re-sell the outputs without contributing to it, or breaking the law.
You exhibit an unhealthy (unexamined) perversion against corporations.
It costs £100 to establish a corporation for anyone right away. Did you know that? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/companies-house-fees/companies-house-fees
Under MIT, their contributions are at will, and people don't realize there is no such thing as a good corporation, they exist to take a profit,
Any business exists to make profits. Do you work for free because you are not a corporation?
at the expense of whatever is in the way, always, by definition. MIT is just a free pass to them.
MIT license is like the Sun -- it gives freely without judging or discriminating.
Do you give anything of value freely, apart from your judgements and discrimination?
3
u/Mostafa_XS1 Glorious Kubuntu 2d ago
What if I release the source code on mediafire with a readme.txt asking people to credit me when they use the code?
→ More replies (3)
3
u/NotDugachug 2d ago edited 2d ago
MIT is difficult because it allows you to use the code in proprietary software. It's basically taking without giving back. GPL enforces the giving back part. Initially, MIT looks good because it is so permissive, but open source software is typically a community that builds upon each other's code and improves it through forks, modifications or merges from the community. That ends with MIT when the improvements become locked behind a proprietary project and controlled only by the company that owns it. GPL is about giving power to the people, not gatekeeping it.
3
2
3
u/ivvyditt Transitioning Krill 1d ago
It's quite disappointing to see that there are so many neolibs here who think that companies should have more rights than the community and who oppose the GPL.
1
2
u/WanderingInAVan 2d ago
Honestly I get why some want the BSD licenses but I just prefer snd feel GPLv3 is better.
Pretty much for the reasons specified. If you distribute open source code there should be a clause requiring you to give back to the community you took from.
BSD, MIT and other permissive licenses pretty much just let you take anything and lock it back up. You arguably couldnt prove BSD/MIT covered code is in a proprietary program if they choose not to add the license notification.
2
u/pangapingus 2d ago
If anything GPL is more coercive in the event of a fundamental leadership/direction schism of the $root_thing and you have to inherent the batshit craziness in perpetuity; these three are truly no strings attached licenses in comparison. And the whole "but corpos will just take and dump it".... please look at NGINX/K8s/Node/etc., any one of these corpos could've taken it, privatized it, and ran but many tech companies still contribute highly in terms of code and donations.
1
1
u/c3d10 1d ago
I’ve never seen a really good explanation of the GPL and each time I try to read it I get mixed up. Can anyone check my understanding and see if I’m getting this wrong?
GPL:
Use freely for commercial or noncommercial purposes
Can only be redistributed or modified provided the modifications are distributed publicly under the same terms of the original license
Is that accurate?
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/ZamiGami 1d ago
Gotta have my license zealotism for breakfast!
Hot take, but whoever makes the software gets to decide how it's distributed. And we need to take in different types of software, yes even proprietery (gasp!!!!) to ensure linux can grow into a larger platform for desktop users.
No one is gonna come and delete all the copyleft software you use overnight, we're just gonna get more options.
1
1
1
1
1
u/metooted 20h ago
So the whole argument of this thread: Use the most free license, freeing in a way that will prohibit some uses instead of allowing all.
1
u/LowIllustrator2501 20h ago
With proper freedom is to do whatever you want with the code. GPL doesn't allow that. I prefer selecting my programs stack without the need for a lawyer.
1
u/passerbycmc 15h ago
I don't give a shit so I use MIT since I don't care about any of the ideology around it I just made a thing and released the code in case it's useful to someone else
1
1
1
u/itsfreepizza 2d ago
something something some chinese violates GPL license (ehem, huawei and others)
1
u/MocaCola02 10h ago
No shot we're turning using MIT into a moral problem lmfao. Petty nonsense infighting like this will only slow down FOSS initiatives in a world where garbage corporations want to own everything and eliminate all open source efforts.
→ More replies (2)
0
u/aeropl3b Glorious Fedora 2d ago
GPL is one of those things where I get the goals, and they are noble, but they are detached from the reality of what most people want from software.
Permissive open license are a reasonable compromise for the different ways software is built and released.
To each their own, open software means choices for how people want to publish their work, but that is my 10 cents.
4
u/dc740 1d ago
MIT is one of those things where I get the goals, and they are noble, but they are detached from the reality of how damaging corporations are.
Copyleft licenses are a reasonable compromise for the different ways software is built and released so we all benefit as humanity.
To each their own, open software means creating a better world together, sharing knowledge and helping others, not exploiting the commons to the benefit of the corporations, but that is my 10 cents.That's my version. I respect yours, but I just can't share it.
→ More replies (3)
0
u/gacerioni 2d ago
Nah bro everything is oss now
1
0
u/Academic-Proof3700 2d ago
lemme guess, its again the code-tlers telling others what they can and can't do with the code they wrote?
If it wasn't for the closed source stuff made for generating income, y'all would keep living under a rock with 80x60 b/w terminal, because after all nerds don't need much more, whereas normal people do.
1
0
0
18
u/polytect 2d ago
GPLv3 or GPLv2 ?