this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
28 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
6942 readers
310 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system
Also check out:
Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Holding the use of a less restrictive license against the project because some unrelated party could come along and fork it without contributing back seems like a strange position to me.
I'm also not really sure what that criticism of MIT is trying to say. Third party contributors don't get paid for their work? GPL projects also don't have to pay people submitting changes.
While I'm not sure how to interpret this, I can answer the second which might help answer your first statement.
It's not about payment but primarily about reciprocation:
[Case 1] I have a project licensed under MIT
P1: "Hey thanks for the contributions I'll add your name to the MIT license."
P2: "Dope, btw I see your company uses it for xyz can I see what the new project looks like?"
P1: "Fuck no"
P2: "You're joking right"
P1: "MIT license, read it and weap"
End scene.
[Case 2] I have a project licensed under GPL-v(2,3 or AGPL-3.0)
P1: "Hey thanks for the contributions! Here's the new changes."
P2: "No worries and thanks! I hope the project improves even more.๐ซก"
End scene.
Or maybe people don't care about what their project looks like after releasing it?
P1 : Hey, I've used your code in my company project! P2 : Cool. I've got another job to do.
End