nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> And if you were one of the contributors of code and patches to that 
> software and later realizes Microsoft or Adobe using it in their closed 
> products without any acknowledgement (let alone royalties) and pissing 
> and laughing on your grave, you are screwed too.

  If you release something under the MIT license, you are saying that
people can use the code in *any way* they want, including using it in
closed-source software. That's what makes the MIT license truely free.
If someone then goes and uses the code in a closed-source software, then
what is it there to be pissed off about? You granted permission to do
exactly that.

> The GPL protects the code from gettting trapped into a closed product 
> and also the rights of the original developers to it.

  By not being as free as it advertises to be.

> It's more restrictive because it must make sure code remains free to use 
> and modify.  I take it over any permissive license anyday.

  It's in fact so restrictive that it becomes useless in many cases.

  The GPL license is basically completely incompatible with everything
else. If you are in a project using any other license, you have to make
extra sure you don't use *any* GPL'd code anywhere. This can be a real
burden sometimes.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message