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

[email protected]

Pinta 3.0 Open-Source Paint Program Released with GTK4 Port, New Effects (9to5linux.com)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

While I'm not sure how to interpret this, I can answer the second which might help answer your first statement.

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.

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.🫡"
End scene.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 20 hours ago

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