pineapple comments on Rust Coreutils cp Ended Up Breaking Ubuntu Image Builds With Latest Incompatibility

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (12 children)

No. I'm talking about the free software foundations definition of free software. The mit license is an open source licence, not a free software license.

Anyway, I'm interested as to why you don't think the MIT license is worse than the GPL.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago* (1 child)

You linked the right definition but you are wrong. MIT is a Free Software license.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat

Open Source and Free Software are just two different philosophies -- the licenses are the same. A Free Software license also works as an Open Source license and vice versa.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago

Oh okay thanks for the correction, I should revise my understanding of the difference between copyright and copyleft.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (9 children)

Its not about being bad or worse or better, its being different that grants different rights. MIT is more permissive, which you may like or may not. Some people don't like GPL in example, because you cannot mix it with proprietary license. Or they want to keep a change secret, which is a right I would want to give. I'm not saying its better or worse, but I want to give the people the right to do what they want. This can lead to better or worse outcome.

Its only worse than GPL, if you want to enforce all modifications to be Open Source too.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (8 children)

I argue that using MIT will mostly result in a worse outcome than the GPL since our goal should always be having as much FOSS software as possible. Allowing people to make proprietry software from open source software results in less open source software.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (7 children)

No, it doesn't result in less open source. It results in more proprietary. You have the same amount of open source as before and didn't LOSE anything. The MIT License allows for stuff that wouldn't be possible otherwise and it is easier to understand and teach too. I argue that using MIT does not automatically or mostly result in worse outcomes than if they used GPL. Mostly it works fine.

That does not mean MIT is perfect. Like every license, it has its own strengths and weakness and should be considered like any other license. Also you can still go from MIT to GPL, in case you change your mind later and want to enforce GPL on any project based on it, but not other way round.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Not nessesarily think about comparing macos with aosp.

Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.

Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn't free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn't have to.

Not using the GPL can result in less open source.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

As said, its not less open source than before. Its just not more.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

OK sure, but why should we give away an opportunity to get more open source software?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago* (3 children)

Because the license has other strengths as well. Also usually and in most cases its not even a problem. And in case of the Rust coreutils, its not like as if there was no alternative like the original coreutils. So having an alternative that can be used easier in other software where GPL is a bit problematic is not a bad thing.

And the MIT License isn't giving up on more Open Source too. So there is an opportunity.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Because the license has other strengths as well.

What are it's strengths?

So having an alternative that can be used easier in other software where GPL is a bit problematic is not a bad thing.

The GPL is only problematic when used alongside proprietary software, something we want to avoid. So far people have used the original coreutils for decades and it hasn't been a problem.

If the GNU+linux operating software shifts towards a permissive license (like MIT) it makes way for companies such as Red Hat and Canonical to start making proprietary operating systems. This would be a massive shame to Linux since the whole community benefits a lot from their contributions.

And the MIT License isn’t giving up on more Open Source too. So there is an opportunity.

I described earlier exactly why the MIT license is giving up on open source software so allow me to repeat myself.

Think about comparing macos with aosp.

Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.

Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.

Not using the GPL can result in less open source.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

You just describe ONE way. MIT License isn't giving up Open Source, as all Open Source projects with MIT prove it. Also the world is not only about GPL, there are other licenses in effect that either cannot or don't want to change. In that case a program with MIT could be used and helpful for the project. In such a case its better to have a MIT licensed Open Source library instead a proprietary library, even if the whole thing is not GPL licensed (whatever it ends up being). Not all Open Source licenses are compatible with GPL, or even proprietary licenses. So having the coreutils as MIT licensed software alongside its original GNU GPL versions are not a bad thing. It's only a bad thing, if you want to enforce GPL code for any derivative works.

And not every project or maintainer cares if someone contributes back. In fact there are a few Open Source projects (even licensed in GPL) that does not operate on a community basis and do not accept code from others, other than a closed circle of chosen developers. Also MIT license is much easier to understand and grasp and does not require a lawyer to understand it (I read it multiple times and there are still bits I get confused or forget over time). It is also less risky for companies (or for any individual for that matter, who is not well versed in licensing and just want to license a simple program in example). Meaning if a company is afraid of using GPL and they make a mistake, everything needs to be Open Source or they could get sued. They could decide not to do partial Open Source. In that case a partial Open Source with MIT License is the better choice.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago*

The current GNU coreutils have been C for decades, and I am not aware of an instance where this was a limiting factor. The GNU coreutils can still be bundled with proprietary software. Just like some Linux distributions used to come bundled with proprietary Nvidia drivers.

Can you possibly find an example where the Licensing the rust coreutils under the GPL would be an issue? Or actually any example at all of where using the GPL is a bad thing?

MIT License isn’t giving up Open Source, as all Open Source projects with MIT prove it.

I literally just described an example of it giving up open source. Any project under the MIT (https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat) license can become proprietary at any time and all development is no longer open source! How is my example of apple using FreeBSD without contributing not an example of giving up open source? If you would like I can find more examples. So far you havn't given me any for your own evidence but I would like some so I can understand your argument better.