this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
1004 points (88.6% liked)

linuxmemes

21172 readers
1041 users here now

Hint: :q!

Sister communities:

Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
    • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
    • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

    • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
    poopsmith@lemmy.world
    zephyr@lemmy.world
    rtxn@lemmy.world
    1004
    With GPL, you're programming Freedom. With MIT, you're programming for free. (lemmy.world)
    submitted 4 months ago by renzev@lemmy.world to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
    250 comments fedilink hide all child comments
     

    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.

    (page 2) 50 comments
    sorted by: hot top controversial new old
    [–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    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?

    [–] nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    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

    load more comments (2 replies)
    load more comments (1 replies)
    [–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 12 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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

    load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] mhague@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

    Permissive licenses are truer to the spirit of free software but copyleft, while kind of a copout, seems more pragmatic due to corporations. I wouldn't avoid copyleft licensing on principle or anything but it feels incongruous to want to make something freely available to all but then nitpick over how they use it.

    [–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Permissive licenses are truer to the spirit of free software

    Yeah, which is why the person who popularized the concept of Free Software invented copyleft -- oh wait.

    "The spirit of Free Software" is freedom for the end user; as such, copyleft is much more truer to it. Remember, the whole thing started with the notion that Xerox shouldn't be able to stop you from fixing your fucking printer by withholding the source code to it.

    load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

    I find MIT to be good for libraries as you can get companies using it and working on it. However, apps and binaries should be copyleft to not get fucked over.

    load more comments (1 replies)
    [–] pelya@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Busybox was quickly replaced by BSD-licensed Toybox everywhere for that exact reason.

    Copyleft licenses (like the Gnu General Public License) mandate that all derivative works remain free.

    This is false. It's perfectly legal to take GPL-licensed work, modify it, and sell it. As long as the work itself does not reach the general public, you don't need to release it's source code to the public (e.g. your work for the military, you take money for your work, and provide source code to them, but not release it publicly).

    load more comments (7 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: ‹ prev next ›