There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

With GPL, you're programming Freedom. With MIT, you're programming for free.

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.

interdimensionalmeme ,

Someone please SUE ANYCUBIC AND CREALITY FOR STEALING KLIPPER !!! Make them give back to the community that created their business !!

laurelraven ,

I don’t know much of anything about Anycubic, but isn’t pretty much everything Creality releases open? How are they withholding from the community?

interdimensionalmeme ,

Last I checked, they haven’t release the source of their modified / bastardized version of klipper

Fedizen ,

AI tools have turned them all into MIT licenses

lemmyvore ,

AI scrapers don’t obey any license. They strip copyright information from all the code they take.

ZILtoid1991 ,

Worse, public domain license, except you need to modify them a lot.

Since they’re being trained on GPL (and possibly leaked proprietary) codes, I have banned them from my codebases. I also banned AI art from asset usage on similar + ethical grounds.

menemen ,
@menemen@lemmy.world avatar

I could imagine MIT might be interesting for Software released by public institutions, that are meant to be used by the industry in any way they want. Sometimes earning money with your product might even be impossible due to restrictions. So, not really Software released with the FOSS philosophy.

Otherwise I also never really understood why anyone would use the MIT license.

humbletightband ,

Possibly a company that discloses a tiny part of their proprietary code

menemen ,
@menemen@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah, maybe under special circumstances that might also make sense.

CapeWearingAeroplane ,

I do exactly this: Write code/frameworks that are used in academic research, which is useful to industry. Once we publish an article, we publish our models open-source under the MIT license. That is because companies that want to use it can then embed our models into their proprietary software, with essentially no strings attached. This gives them an incentive to support our research in terms of collaborative projects, because they see that our research results in stuff they can use.

If we had used the GPL, our main collaborators would probably not have been interested.

menemen ,
@menemen@lemmy.world avatar

Then you are pretty much the archetype of what I thought about. :)

Chakravanti ,

Money is literally the definition and essence of all evil.

Sometimes earning money with your product might even be impossible due to restrictions.

Good.

Thanks RMS, you are the ONLY good software patent definition and thus choice available when we want REAL freedom, the ability to even choose at all (everything is a lie), and not wanting to serve the incoming thing that’ll make you wish you hadn’t found yourself stuck in the Matrix without know shit about da fuck is being done by who/what

Err…we don’t have a word to define that which is in control. You have no way out but death. And you won’t be able to make THAT choice either.

Theharpyeagle ,

I think the rub here is that most developers aren’t developing/publishing their own software, but honing their skills on writing proprietary code while also putting food on the table. To that end, a permissively licensed library is better because the company will actually use it and the developer will gain experience with it that they can then use outside of the proprietary environment to contribute to FOSS projects (some of which may well use GPL). If a GPL end user product gets popular enough, it will eventually be able to use all of that gained experience to compete with the propriety alternatives, so I do think the two can work in tandem.

vga ,

Copyleft = pro-capital confirmed.

baatliwala ,

Permissive licenses have their place, a reason Godot engine for games has become appealing is MIT.

ReveredOxygen ,
@ReveredOxygen@sh.itjust.works avatar

It doesn’t need to be MIT, just LGPL

baatliwala ,

I believe that still compels you to reveal your source code if you modify Godot itself and release games with that, don’t quote me on that though. There’s a chance studios want to create a custom implementation for in-house use.

uis ,

I believe that still compels you to reveal your source code if you modify Godot itself and release games with that, don’t quote me on that though.

Well, they modified game engine itself. Makes sense.

There’s a chance studios want to create a custom implementation for in-house use.

If game studios wanted to create custom implementation, they can do it instead of changing existing one.

uis ,

Free software licenses have their place, a reason Blender has become appealing is GPL.

baatliwala ,

Wut, you create animation not software using Blender

snek_boi ,

We are at risk

of losing many developers who would otherwise choose a license like the GPL. Fortunately, I’m glad to be surrounded by people, just like you, who care about licenses like GPL. By uploading this type of content and engaging with it, be show our commitment to it. I wish to suggest how we can deal with this threat.

We will lose developers who choose GPL if we use words that suggest GPL is “restrictive”. Sure, the word “restrictive” was avoided in this meme by using the word “copyleft”, but the cognitive jump from “permissive” to “restrictive” is minimal: just add an “opposite” and you’ve got “permissive is the opposite to restrictive”. It really is that simple. That’s how brain works (check out Relational Frame Theory to see how that works).

So what can we do about it?

Well, we can approach this with science. There is a historical global trend towards people being more meta-cognitive. That means that people are becoming more aware of how our thoughts interpret everyday reality and how to be intentional with our relationship with our thoughts so that we live better lives. We know this trend is happening to virtually everyone everywhere because of the work of brilliant sociologists like Anthony Giddens and Christian Welzel. Heck, even the history of psychology —going from noticing and changing behaviors (behaviorism) to noticing and changing behaviors and thoughts (cognitive-behaviorism), to noticing and changing the context and function of behaviors, thoughts, and emotions (functional contextualism)— reflects this trend.

We can use meta-cognition in our favor; we can use the meta-cognitive tool of framing to change how we think about GPL and MIT licenses. Effective communicators like influencers, political campaign experts, and influential activists use framing all the time. For example, instead of using the dangerous framing that suggests GPL is ‘restrictive’, we can use another one that truly displays the virtues of the license.

What would this other frame look like? I may not have a perfect answer, but here are some

ways of framing (thinking about) the relationship between licenses like GPL and MIT:

(ironically!!!, these were ‘suggested’ by an LLM; I wonder if these frames already existed)

  • “Investment-Protecting Licenses” vs. “Investment-Risking Licenses” (as in developers invest by working on projects that they could (not) lose the ability to contribute to)
  • “Community-Resource-Guarding Licenses” vs. “Exploitation-Vulnerable Licenses”
  • “Give-and-Take Licenses” vs. “Take-and-Keep Licenses” ⭐
  • "Freedom-Ensuring Licenses" vs. “Freedom-Risking Licenses” ⭐
  • "Contribution-Rewarding Licenses" vs. “Contribution-Exploiting Licenses”
  • “Open-Source-Preserving Licenses” vs. “Closed-Source-Enabling Licenses”

I’d be happy to hear what you think, including suggestions!

lemmynparty ,

There’s a fair bit of bias in those terms, which make GPL seem like a ‘better’ choice than an unrestricted license like MIT.
The truth is, GPL is restrictive to developers. Copying just one line from a gpl-licensed project will automatically restrict you to using only gpl-compatible licenses. I’d prefer to advocate for LGPL and similar licenses, as they seem to offer a better tradeoff between user and developer freedom.

TwiddleTwaddle ,

GPLs “restrictions” are freedom preserving though. It only restricts developers from keeping dirivitive code proprietary. In order to violate the GPL you’d have to choose to use GPL code and then choose not to release your modified versions of it under a similar copyleft license. It may seem counterintuitive, but having those restrictions results in more software freedom overall - similar to the paradox of intolerance.

I’m not saying MIT or so called permissive licenses are bad, but the permissive/restrictive language is just as loaded as the OPs suggestions. Both styles are needed, but copyleft licenses are better at promoting software freedom.

Edit: I do agree with you that LGPL serves an important role in promoting free/libre software where it would otherwise would never be used.

snek_boi , (edited )

There’s a fair bit of bias in the terms “restrictive” and “permissive”, which make MIT seem like a ‘better’ choice than a give-and-take license like GPL.

The truth is, MIT is risky for developers. Using just one line from an MIT-licensed project will automatically allow others to exploit your work without giving back. I’d prefer to advocate for balanced licenses that protect both user and developer interests.

lemmynparty ,

Ha, maybe I should have licensed my comment.

You’re wrong though.

Using code from an MIT licensed project will not allow others to exploit your work. MIT is compatible with almost all other licenses, so you can incorporate the code without needing to relicense your project.

If you meant that choosing to license your entire project with MIT would allow others to exploit your work, then yes, that’s the whole point of the license.

For some small projects, I’m completely fine with throwing it out into the world with no expectation of anything in return.

If a company ends out using my 50-line file conversion tool in their commercial product, I see that as a bonus thing to put on my résumé.

alsaaas ,
@alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

I’ve taken up saying “temporarily free/libre” and “permanently free/libre” instead of the permissive/copyleft, since imo “permissive” has a suggestive positive connotation. Especially to ppl who do not know much about the free software movement

nossaquesapao ,

Temporarily free gives the idea that the code will stop being free at some point and may cause misunderstandings. It would be better to use nonreciprocal.

alsaaas ,
@alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

It will stop being free the second a corporation gets it’s hands on it, makes improvements and put’s those under a proprietary license

cqst ,

Yes, but the originally free/libre licensed source code is still out there.

makes improvements and put’s those under a proprietary license

You could also make improvements and release them under a GPL license.

uis ,

Temporarily free gives the idea that the code will stop being free at some point

Because it absolutely can and most of the times does.

nossaquesapao ,

The original code never stops being free, but the code incorporated into a new project will be, so it’s a misleading term to people unfamiliar with open source licensing, that may think the license somehow expires. Even the fsf doesn’t use such terminology. They use reciprocal and nonreciprocal, because it translates the idea that gpl-like licenses create a relationship of reciprocity, and bsd-like ones create a relationship of non reciprocity.

MeThisGuy ,

this one?

https://feddit.nl/pictrs/image/4e9fadc2-26d4-4656-bbe4-3f256cc8a371.jpeg

NaoPb ,

I didn’t know there was a mailman living in my computer screen.

pmk , (edited )

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.

For example, OpenBSD has as a project goal: “We want to make available source code that anyone can use for ANY PURPOSE, with no restrictions. We strive to make our software robust and secure, and encourage companies to use whichever pieces they want to.”

Terevos ,
@Terevos@lemm.ee avatar

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.

DragonTypeWyvern ,

I don’t get people with cuckold fetishes, so here we are again.

Hobbes_Dent ,

Here we are again, in a big circle jerk over GPL. Is that like cucking for other licenses but without sex?

To use the above example, how is it cucky that a license allows something like OpenSSH to gain broad use?

Chakravanti ,

Hey, asshole. Stop insulting cuckold. I can explain even that to a practical sense that isn’t literally evil.

lemmyvore ,

People seem to think that those who choose permissive licences don’t know what they’re doing.

Most of them don’t. Lots of people say they use MIT because they want “no restrictions”, or call GPL terms “restrictive”. That’s an instant giveaway that they don’t understand what they’re talking about.

Theharpyeagle ,

Indeed, I think it’s just two philosophies that don’t necessarily need to be at odds. Permissive licenses help speed the adoption of languages and libraries, which ultimately feeds into the slowly building momentum of the copyleft projects that use them.

Andromxda ,
@Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

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

pmk ,

It’s fair, but different people have different ideas about what they want, and in the end it’s the authors right to decide what is fair for their code. An unconditional gift is also fair.

pineapplelover ,

My project is MIT because the upstream project is MIT, could I slap a GPL on there? How would I do that? What would that change?

TheOubliette ,

Yes you can. You just change the license that lives with the code.

What it changes depends on the project, how it’s used, who uses it, etc. It’s really a social question of how people might interact with your project differently.

nossaquesapao , (edited )

You can use the gpl license in newer versions of your software, but keep in mind, in order to avoid future misunderstandings, that you can only do that because the upstream project uses the mit license. If the project used a reciprocal license like the gpl, you’d need to stick to it or use a compatible one. You can’t, for example, take a upstream gpl project and use a mit license

pineapplelover ,

From what I understand, I can’t replace the license, but I can add on top of it. So it will kinda have both the upstrean’s mit license and my gpl license. I remember looking this up a while back and it was a little confusing.

nossaquesapao ,

You can replace in the sense of making new releases on the gpl license. The mit license only requires to keep the original copyright notice. I changed the original comment to avoid this confusion, thanks for pointing that out.

pewgar_seemsimandroid ,

Apache and GPL should replace MIT

nossaquesapao ,

What are the advantages of apache over mit?

noahimesaka1873 ,
@noahimesaka1873@lemmy.funami.tech avatar

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.

nossaquesapao ,

Thats really interesting, I didn’t know that concept existed in foss licenses.

uis ,

It exists outside foss licenses in countries, where math can be patented.

nossaquesapao ,

deleted_by_author

    •
    uis ,

    natural substances can be patented.

    Oh, right. In USSA you can patent spider silk and apple tree. Complete absurd.

    uis ,

    endsoftwarepatents.org

    boredsquirrel ,

    Permissive License promoters are corporate trolls

    possiblylinux127 ,

    The MIT is still a free software license. It is completely valid to use it from a Foss perspective.

    renzev OP ,

    That is true

    julianh ,

    MIT license is useful for a lot of stuff that is traditionally monetized. Game development tools, for example. I don’t think a game engine could become very popular if you had to release your game’s source code for free.

    renzev OP ,

    That’s a good point! The FSF also developed LGPL for this reason (their particular example was something like OGG that is meant to displace the proprietary (back then) MP3), but you example with game engines is also a good one!

    uis ,

    libvorbis, yes.

    bjorney ,

    Literally every library with any traction in any field is MIT licensed.

    If the scientific python stack was GPL, then industry would have just kept paying for Matlab licenses

    marcos ,

    The same way, if the BSD internet stack was GPL, we wouldn’t have an internet at all.

    uis ,

    Meanwhile nobody uses BSD this day, everyone is on GPLed Linux

    marcos ,

    Yep, different licenses have different consequences.

    Andromxda ,
    @Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    For a different reason tho

    uis ,

    Because companies weren’t sharing modifications under network stack that was originally BSD. I think the only advantage *BSD stack has over Linux is kqueue, which notifies also about amount of avaliable bytes in socket, what epoll doesn’t do.

    uis ,

    LGPL

    woelkchen ,
    @woelkchen@lemmy.world avatar

    LGPL

    Depending on the provisions of a console’s SDK, that may be not an option because you may be able to deduct some of the SDK’s working from the released source code and that may violate the NDA.

    uis ,

    NDAs are cancer

    woelkchen ,
    @woelkchen@lemmy.world avatar

    Sure but that attitude doesn’t help game developers looking to make a living selling console games. Godot with its licensing, helped by Unity messing up big time, is about to become the entry level game engine… The engine universities and self-taught game developers will likely use it as learning tool. Godot got a big influx of donations even though it’s under a permissive license. Small indies don’t care to modify the core engine anyway. Most GZDoom games on Steam are living proof of that. Game logic in separate scripts isn’t covered by the interpreter’s license anyway.

    uis ,

    Godot got a big influx of donations even though it’s under a permissive license.

    Many opensource game engines received donations when Unity tried to rape gamedevs.

    Game logic in separate scripts isn’t covered by the interpreter’s license anyway.

    That’s why I said game engine can be LGPL. Even GPL, if game logic is loaded separately.

    woelkchen ,
    @woelkchen@lemmy.world avatar

    Game engines can’t be LGPL because of console SDK NDAs. At best MPL.

    drkt ,
    @drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    I can’t afford a lawyer so I have no wishy washy ideals of taking a corporation to court for stealing my work ☺️

    possiblylinux127 ,

    You can report GPL violations to [email protected]

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •