Comment by fn-mote
25 days ago
You should have linked the MIT License on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) instead of Free Software.
The license is only three paragraphs long. You can see it does not contain text supporting your claim.
25 days ago
You should have linked the MIT License on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) instead of Free Software.
The license is only three paragraphs long. You can see it does not contain text supporting your claim.
Well, I'm confused.
It's actually very simple:
MIT/BSD licenses are pro-business - any business can take the product, change a few lines and redistribute the result without making their changes available.
GPL is pro-user - anyone who gets the source, makes changes, and then redistributes the result has to make their changed sources available as well.
The FSF has written extensively on why (in their opinion) you should prefer copyleft licenses over non-copyleft licenses, but they don't require a license to be copyleft in order to be considered free. It's worth spending a bit of time on their site to understand their point of view. Just be careful not to drink too much of the Kool-Aid or you'll become one of those annoying people who never shut up about the GPL on forums.
> you should prefer copyleft licenses over non-copyleft licenses,
For most, but not all, software. Stallman did famously argue for libvorbis, which you may know as the ogg codec used mostly by games and spotify, to be licensed under BSD instead of the (L)GPL.
1 reply →
Don't listen to spauldo, GP. Drink the delicious Kool Aid that is free software. Bring that joy to everyone else you find.