1004
With GPL, you're programming Freedom. With MIT, you're programming for free. (lemmy.world)
submitted 5 months ago by renzev@lemmy.world to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
250 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Context:

Permissive licenses (commonly referred to as "cuck licenses") like the MIT license allow others to modify your software and release it under an unfree license. Copyleft licenses (like the Gnu General Public License) mandate that all derivative works remain free.

Andrew Tanenbaum developed MINIX, a modular operating system kernel. Intel went ahead and used it to build Management Engine, arguably one of the most widespread and invasive pieces of malware in the world, without even as much as telling him. There's nothing Tanenbaum could do, since the MIT license allows this.

Erik Andersen is one of the developers of Busybox, a minimal implementation of that's suited for embedded systems. Many companies tried to steal his code and distribute it with their unfree products, but since it's protected under the GPL, Busybox developers were able to sue them and gain some money in the process.

Interestingly enough, Tanenbaum doesn't seem to mind what intel did. But there are some examples out there of people regretting releasing their work under a permissive license.

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] nUbee@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

When I think of Copyleft licenses, I just think of it as "Use this program as you see fit, but if you share/redistribute it, you may not add any restrictions to it."

I don't understand why there are communities that hate GPL so much. It is such a powerful license that practically guarantees that the program will be free for any who wants it, it just won't allow someone to add restrictions to it.

I've heard arguments against the GPL like: "It's too restrictive!" Only if you want your program to be muddled with any kind of program that doesn't respect freedom. Saying the GPL is too restrictive to developers is like saying the 13th amendment of the US Constitution is too restrictive to slave owners.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nickwitha_k 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Really?...

Just about every FOSS and Source-Available license that I've seen is perfectly valid. As a software developer, one has the option to choose how they wish to license their software. This can be based upon one's personal philosophical view or what seems most appropriate for the piece of software.

Not everyone is motivated by profit. Most software that I develop personally is permissively licensed because IDGAF as long as I have enough to get by. If I write some code that makes someone else's life better or easier, that's more than enough for me.

Wait. What am I saying? This is the Internet and, according to the rules of corpo social media, we're all supposed to be dicks to each other to further "engagement". WHICH ONE OF YOU SAVAGES IS USING TAB INDENTATION INSTEAD OF BLOCKS IN YOUR LICENSE FILES?!?;?!!!!111one

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] nomadjoanne@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Tannenbaum is fucking asshole. Isn't he the idiot that told Torvalds "you certainly would have failed my class if you submitted your OS as a final project?"

The guy deserves no respect.

[-] boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net 4 points 5 months ago

Permissive License promoters are corporate trolls

[-] pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 months ago

Apache and GPL should replace MIT

[-] nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 5 months ago

What are the advantages of apache over mit?

[-] noahimesaka1873@lemmy.funami.tech 3 points 5 months ago

Patent licensing. Apache explicitly grants the use of patented technology in the code. MIT doesn't do that so you can be sued for patent violation.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago

Intel went ahead and used it to build Management Engine, arguably one of the most widespread and invasive pieces of malware in the world, without even as much as telling him.

Is that arguable because it's complete bunk? You may as well say the same about IPMI.

[-] uis@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago

IPMI isn't required to boot regular desktop

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
1004 points (88.6% liked)

linuxmemes

21282 readers
1122 users here now

Hint: :q!

Sister communities:

Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
    • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
    • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
    •  

    Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
    poopsmith@lemmy.world
    zephyr@lemmy.world
    rtxn@lemmy.world