Open Source and Free Software are just two different philosophies – the licenses are the same. A Free Software license also works as an Open Source license and vice versa.
Its not about being bad or worse or better, its being different that grants different rights. MIT is more permissive, which you may like or may not. Some people don’t like GPL in example, because you cannot mix it with proprietary license. Or they want to keep a change secret, which is a right I would want to give. I’m not saying its better or worse, but I want to give the people the right to do what they want. This can lead to better or worse outcome.
Its only worse than GPL, if you want to enforce all modifications to be Open Source too.
I argue that using MIT will mostly result in a worse outcome than the GPL since our goal should always be having as much FOSS software as possible. Allowing people to make proprietry software from open source software results in less open source software.
No, it doesn’t result in less open source. It results in more proprietary. You have the same amount of open source as before and didn’t LOSE anything. The MIT License allows for stuff that wouldn’t be possible otherwise and it is easier to understand and teach too. I argue that using MIT does not automatically or mostly result in worse outcomes than if they used GPL. Mostly it works fine.
That does not mean MIT is perfect. Like every license, it has its own strengths and weakness and should be considered like any other license. Also you can still go from MIT to GPL, in case you change your mind later and want to enforce GPL on any project based on it, but not other way round.
Not nessesarily think about comparing macos with aosp.
Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.
Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.
Because the license has other strengths as well. Also usually and in most cases its not even a problem. And in case of the Rust coreutils, its not like as if there was no alternative like the original coreutils. So having an alternative that can be used easier in other software where GPL is a bit problematic is not a bad thing.
And the MIT License isn’t giving up on more Open Source too. So there is an opportunity.
So having an alternative that can be used easier in other software where GPL is a bit problematic is not a bad thing.
The GPL is only problematic when used alongside proprietary software, something we want to avoid. So far people have used the original coreutils for decades and it hasn’t been a problem.
If the GNU+linux operating software shifts towards a permissive license (like MIT) it makes way for companies such as Red Hat and Canonical to start making proprietary operating systems. This would be a massive shame to Linux since the whole community benefits a lot from their contributions.
And the MIT License isn’t giving up on more Open Source too. So there is an opportunity.
I described earlier exactly why the MIT license is giving up on open source software so allow me to repeat myself.
Think about comparing macos with aosp.
Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.
Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.
No. I’m talking about the free software foundations definition of free software. The mit license is an open source licence, not a free software license.
Anyway, I’m interested as to why you don’t think the MIT license is worse than the GPL.
You linked the right definition but you are wrong. MIT is a Free Software license.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat
Open Source and Free Software are just two different philosophies – the licenses are the same. A Free Software license also works as an Open Source license and vice versa.
Its not about being bad or worse or better, its being different that grants different rights. MIT is more permissive, which you may like or may not. Some people don’t like GPL in example, because you cannot mix it with proprietary license. Or they want to keep a change secret, which is a right I would want to give. I’m not saying its better or worse, but I want to give the people the right to do what they want. This can lead to better or worse outcome.
Its only worse than GPL, if you want to enforce all modifications to be Open Source too.
I argue that using MIT will mostly result in a worse outcome than the GPL since our goal should always be having as much FOSS software as possible. Allowing people to make proprietry software from open source software results in less open source software.
No, it doesn’t result in less open source. It results in more proprietary. You have the same amount of open source as before and didn’t LOSE anything. The MIT License allows for stuff that wouldn’t be possible otherwise and it is easier to understand and teach too. I argue that using MIT does not automatically or mostly result in worse outcomes than if they used GPL. Mostly it works fine.
That does not mean MIT is perfect. Like every license, it has its own strengths and weakness and should be considered like any other license. Also you can still go from MIT to GPL, in case you change your mind later and want to enforce GPL on any project based on it, but not other way round.
Not nessesarily think about comparing macos with aosp.
Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.
Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.
Not using the GPL can result in less open source.
As said, its not less open source than before. Its just not more.
OK sure, but why should we give away an opportunity to get more open source software?
Because the license has other strengths as well. Also usually and in most cases its not even a problem. And in case of the Rust coreutils, its not like as if there was no alternative like the original coreutils. So having an alternative that can be used easier in other software where GPL is a bit problematic is not a bad thing.
And the MIT License isn’t giving up on more Open Source too. So there is an opportunity.
What are it’s strengths?
The GPL is only problematic when used alongside proprietary software, something we want to avoid. So far people have used the original coreutils for decades and it hasn’t been a problem.
If the GNU+linux operating software shifts towards a permissive license (like MIT) it makes way for companies such as Red Hat and Canonical to start making proprietary operating systems. This would be a massive shame to Linux since the whole community benefits a lot from their contributions.
I described earlier exactly why the MIT license is giving up on open source software so allow me to repeat myself.
Think about comparing macos with aosp.
Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.
Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.
Not using the GPL can result in less open source.