Post AxebzWvIc5IOxUh4W8 by eruwero@ieji.de
(DIR) More posts by eruwero@ieji.de
(DIR) Post #AxebzLkGAmvgI4RbHc by justinf@mas.to
2025-08-22T19:43:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Just gonna leave this here... #opensource #software #FOSS
(DIR) Post #AxebzMkIS8YLOTT8ym by eruwero@ieji.de
2025-08-22T20:22:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@justinf and why?
(DIR) Post #AxebzNm6ctauaNK6RE by justinf@mas.to
2025-08-22T20:31:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eruwero More freedom in an MIT license.
(DIR) Post #AxebzOIMgxOmCQPrii by eruwero@ieji.de
2025-08-22T20:35:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@justinf what kind of freedom?
(DIR) Post #AxebzP8pXtMkp8xlUu by justinf@mas.to
2025-08-22T20:59:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eruwero To use the code any way you wish.
(DIR) Post #AxebzPidOm0QcBiMIy by eruwero@ieji.de
2025-08-22T21:09:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@justinf in some sense yes, but the #GPL focuses on freedom for the users of the software to run, modify, share the software, study the source code etc. And it prevents others from restricting that freedom by making more restrictive derivatives (#copyleft). It's not about the freedom for other developers to use the code for whatever they want, which seems to be the focus of the MIT license and some others. That's an important distinction IMO#freesoftware #foss #floss #opensource
(DIR) Post #AxebzQjNdUCFkn4T6e by justinf@mas.to
2025-08-23T01:56:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eruwero I see and appreciate that user-centric view. MIT grants absolute freedom from the perspective of the individual using the code (developers/companies) for whatever their use-case may be.
(DIR) Post #AxebzRT6tSmC2cSzNw by eruwero@ieji.de
2025-08-23T03:14:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@justinf companies/developers can also use #GPL code for whatever their use-case may be, they just have to also use the GPL for their code. IMO that provides way more freedom than MIT
(DIR) Post #AxebzS7AUWoq2rCyp6 by justinf@mas.to
2025-08-23T14:17:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eruwero Oh I know. I had a GPL software company (since sold). I'm a believer. But GPL is restrictive in that it, in some capacity, forces a worldview. I never got to choose what code we should have opened versus something closed off (which would have been beneficial for users for certain functionality). That lack of freedom was frustrating. MIT is less restrictive because it's very straightforward. No arguing whether something is "GPL compliant" or not (those arguments happen all the time).
(DIR) Post #AxebzSt1cb6GRHbCPw by eruwero@ieji.de
2025-08-23T14:36:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@justinf for what functionality would nonfree software be beneficial for users?
(DIR) Post #AxebzTSpTTjwEKLnE0 by justinf@mas.to
2025-08-23T15:15:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eruwero What do you mean by "nonfree"?
(DIR) Post #AxebzUGSUxRGiFZQa8 by eruwero@ieji.de
2025-08-23T15:32:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@justinf software that doesn't respect user's freedoms. I would use the FSF definition with freedom to run, study, change, improve, distribute the software (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), but you could also define what you mean with "closed off" and we can argue based on that
(DIR) Post #AxebzUnQWNoIMUzky8 by justinf@mas.to
2025-08-28T18:25:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@eruwero Ah got it. Understand that take. My point is that MIT grants broader freedom overall because it doesn’t force obligations on the developer about how they share or license their own work. GPL creates freedom for users, but only by restricting developer choice. MIT creates freedom for both users and developers, because it doesn’t dictate downstream terms.
(DIR) Post #AxebzVZzboesn7iXfU by eruwero@ieji.de
2025-08-28T19:42:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@justinf I understand your take that the MIT license gives more freedom to developers because they don't have to use the same license for derivative work. And it doesn't matter for users short term because they can do with the software what they want whether it uses #MIT or #GPL. But the point is that MIT is worse for users overall (and by extension future developers) exactly because it doesn't restrict other developers in choosing the terms for derivative software.#freesoftware
(DIR) Post #AxebzWE3CshWnMSX6e by eruwero@ieji.de
2025-08-28T19:43:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@justinf This means they can easily make derivatives that for whatever reason appear slightly better than the original (either actual improvements, or just nicer interface or better marketing campaign (maybe because a multi-billion dollar company does it)) and publish it under a proprietary license. Then users of those derivatives have no freedom whatsoever.#freesoftware
(DIR) Post #AxebzWvIc5IOxUh4W8 by eruwero@ieji.de
2025-08-28T19:44:58Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@justinf So IMO the MIT license is great for companies that want to exploit the #opensource community because they can do whatever they want with code other people write for free and magically turn it into money by selling meaningless licenses of derivatives. But it doesn't help at all if the goal is actual #SoftwareFreedom.So people should just stop claiming it is, and admit that the point is that #bigtech companies can continue to abuse the system. Just be honest.#freesoftware #GPL #copyleft
(DIR) Post #AxebzYLZJtu3NFzZ6O by eruwero@ieji.de
2025-08-23T03:18:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@justinf It's a bit weird IMO to claim that MIT gives more freedom when the only argument seems to be that it makes it easier for others to build non-free stuff. How can that be good for freedom?#freesoftware #foss #opensource