86
Licenses are boring but you really need one! (distractedmind.home.blog)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It seems people have a hard time understanding the implications of licenses, so I have written a something to help with that.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

MIT - only good for tiny weekend projects like Xorg, Wayland, Mesa, Godot, Jenkins, MUSL, Node.js, Angular, Vue.js, React, Rust, Julia, F#, Rails, PyPy, Redox, and the Haiku Operating System.

AGPL - good for serious projects that you want to be super successful. Widely used software that started off as AGPL includes………. uhh……..wait…….ummm……. lemmy and Mastadon I guess?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Oh, I'm so sorry I believe projects should use more explicit licences over short ones like MIT. Apache is just more explicit than MIT. The only benefit I see MIT having over Apache is if your code base is so tiny that the Apache license like doubles the file size.

    I believe a lot of devs value MIT because it is simple, but that doesn't necessarily make it good. Sometimes code needs to be complex. Licences are the same way. Prefer explicit licenses written by lawyers over simplistic licenses and crayon licenses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent