linuxmemes

The MIT license guarantees that businesses will use it because it's free and they don't have to think about releasing code or hiding their copyright infringement. The developers I've seen using that license, or at least those who put some thought into it, did do because they want companies to use it and therefore boost their credibility through use and bug reports, etc. They knowingly did free work for a bunch of companies as a way to build their CV, basically. Like your very own self-imposed unpaid internship.

The GPL license is also good for developers, as they know they can work on a substantial project and have some protections against others creating closed derived works off of it. It's just a bit more difficult to get enterprise buy-in, which is not a bad thing for many projects.

The MIT license guarantees freedom for ~~developers~~ proprietary software conglomerates to use FOSS code in their proprietary products. The GPL guarantees freedom for ~~end users~~ the entire FOSS community, both for users and developers.

I mean, it’s funny for a couple of reasons

Yeah I don't think I've ever heard that term before in my life and I've been doing this for a while.

And I don't think I ever wanna hear it again.

I don't get the whole MIT vs GPL rivalry. They both have their uses. If you want to use GPL, go for it. And if you want something like MIT that works too.

Thankfully both exist because I think we definitely need both.

The GPL also makes code available for ANY PURPOSE. It just requires people who modify the code to do the same, which is fair.

People seem to think that those who choose permissive licences don’t know what they’re doing. Software can be a gift to the world with no strings attached. A company “taking” your code is never taking it away from you, you still have all the code you wrote. Some people want this. MIT is not an incomplete GPL, it has its own reasons.

As mentioned in another post, I had another motivation for preferring the BSD license over the GPL .

I maintained a security product for years after the original author left this mature project and focus on life things. In South Korea, 4 engineers used this GPL project internally, but when they went to submit changes back to the project, they were accused and tried for industrial espionage, as the laws in South Korea could be construed to have bearing.

They lost. They're in jail. The FSF took on their case, but was unable to change that. And, in reality, they were jailed for fulfilling the license requirements.

Since then, I simply cannot guarantee that people will be free from penalty when following the license terms, and I carry a lot of guilt over it -- it ultimately led to my scaling-back on work and then moving off the project completely. But the code I do write, I prefer the BSD license. I cannot control or predict what people will do, and I certainly cannot control the action of companies when even the FSF can't steer them properly.

I have no issue with people choosing the GPL; consider it, choose it, support it, that's all good and well and proper. Keep doing that, and were my support ever needed, you'd have it. But my choice is different.

I got a LOT of flack when I mentioned this before; like I'm some turncoat or cuck and not allowed in the techbro club. And while their opinion is unassailable, its value scales accordingly. Bless their heart.

If I want to make a piece of software to improve people's lives

If that is your intention, GPL would make more sense, as every improvement and development would be forced to be made available to those people, thus helping them further.

I doubt that your code helps anyone who needs/deserves to be helped, after beeing processed by big corpo.

You could think about your definition of freedom. For me: My freedom ends, where it restricts others people freedom - I shouldn't be free to rob people and call it restriction if someone forbids this.