somebody wrote:
> That is a matter of opinion, and how you define "free".

I don't think so. I think there's a very easy metric.

If everything I can do with software A I can also do with software B, but 
there are some things I can do with B that I can't do with A, then B is more 
free than A.

> GPL does bring more restrictions for usage, but ensures that code always
> stays free. MIT license is less restrictive, but it also means it does not
> ensure continuity of free future code as much as GPL does. It's a tradeoff.

The MIT license ensures that anything licensed under the MIT license is 
free. Now, you can take that code, and add *NEW* code that isn't MIT 
licensed to it. But that isn't the code that was MIT licensed.

You're conflating "the code that I released" with "the code that you 
released that builds on my code."  You think that if the latter isn't free, 
then the former isn't either.

GPL isn't there to make *my* code free. It's there to make free the code of 
people who improve GPLed code. The brainwashing in this case is to make 
people think that if I improve your code, then it's still your code to control.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message