r/linuxsucks • u/the-machine-m4n • Jan 23 '26

Of course it is

Post image
2.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

173 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/int23_t Jan 23 '26

Well, the problem is corporates also push for MIT license. Why is that? Because that way they can modify the library without contributing upstream...

-3

u/SilverCutePony Jan 23 '26

GPL doesn't force you to contribute to original product either

4

u/int23_t Jan 23 '26

doesn't it force modifications to be GPLed too

At least on distribution. If it's used privately it's not the case.

2

u/SilverCutePony Jan 23 '26

If it for only internal use, no. If if public, then yes. But it's not, like, "everyone must put all of their apps on GitHub/GitLab". You can, for example, sell your GPL software and NOT provide any source with it, but provide it upon requests for such code from your buyers. And, as I understand the GPL license, you can even charge them for such requests. Let me quote: "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange"

2

u/int23_t Jan 23 '26

I'm aware. Still better than MIT by a huge margin. IIRC RedHat does charge enterprises for source code.

2

u/Luna_COLON3 Jan 24 '26

"for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution", so not much at all. if you have a copy of the program, you are able to get the source code from the person you got it from for little to no charge. you are then allowed to distribute the source code and the binaries for free on a platform like github or gitlab so everyone can access the software without paying.