-27
what do you think of mit??
(lemmy.today)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
-27 points (24.5% liked)
Linux
46643 readers
775 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I like the MIT-License. And don't care who visited it or not.
MIT is a harmful license in some scenario. I mean, it has it's use cases for certain apps, but quite a few softwares out there would really benefit from GPL and AGPL-type licenses.
Any license can be harmful in some scenarios. I like MIT, because its simple and allows basically anything. There are some situations in which GPL is harmful too (such not being able to mix with any type of license) and would benefit from MIT. One can also go from MIT to GPL, but not other way, if everything is licenses in GPL.
For complex programs that are important and where the source code must stay open, GPL is perfect. Like always, every license has its harmful scenarios and its use cases.
GPL licenced software merely has to comply with the GPL - make your changes available to all etc. The whole point of the GPL is to ensure that you can take but enforces that you give back too. It's the Stone Soup thing.
MIT is loved by say Apple because they can take your work, do their thing and not have to contribute back. To be fair, Appley stuff is now quite a long way away from BSD!
As I'm feeling charitable, I should also point out that CUPS is/was largely Apple driven, as is Avahi/Bonjour. I can deploy a Linux box and expect it to find and setup available printers without having to do anything.
GPL can prevent the linking of external and non-free third party libraries. It can add an increased legal complexity to the code base. It’s difficult for MIT licenses to have that “clashing” between licenses.
There are variations to GPL that allow the linking of non-free third party libraries. Either way, consult your lawyer before using GPL code.
Well, that is like, your opinion man.
Ok. Obviously different licenses are useful in different circumstances. So, what you are saying is clearly true.
That said, even though the MIT license is the most used license I believe, I wish MIT was used more and GPL less.
I do not want to create or get drawn into a debate ( because we likely have the same facts and just disagree ) but what I dislike about the GPL is that does not respect freedom—specifically developer freedom. It constrains freedom and hopes that what it calls “the 4 freedoms” are a side effect. In my view, the GPL restricts freedom to bestow rights ( a net negative for freedom ).
My opinion is no more valuable than yours. We do not have to convince each other. I am just explaining my view.
Don’t get me wrong, the ability of the original author to choose the GPL is something I totally support. It is a totally valid constraint to place on people that want to use your code. A developer should get to choose the terms under which people can use their code. It is exactly this freedom that the GPL restricts. Again, I think this is totally ok ( as would be demanding money ) but it is certainly a restriction which, by definition, is not freedom.