Technology

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 49 points 2 years ago (4 children)

MIT is free for commercial use and just requires attribution, you aren't required to open source software derived from MIT licensed code.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

GPL is also free for commercial use... all open source licenses are. The rendering engines used by Safari (and Chrome/Edge) are GPL.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] ourob@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 2 years ago (1 child)

GPL can be used for commercial purposes, but it requires all software derived from it to also be open source and GPL compatible. So no one whose commercial business relies on selling software will use GPL because their customers can copy and distribute the code.

Neither Safari nor Chrome’s rendering engine is GPL. Safari’s engine is LGPL, which means the binary library can be linked into a closed source program, but modifications to the library’s code must remain open.

Chromium is BSD, which doesn’t even require modifications to remain open. So I can take chromium’s source, change it however I want for my own browser, and never distribute that code.

If Safari’s and Chrome’s engines were GPL, Safari and Chrome would be forced to be open source, and they very much are not.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

The thing is that source code is just a small part of an application. For example, Quake games are open sourced, but their assets like textures, models and music are not. Thus you can't just compile the game and call it a day. Another example is all kinds of certificates, they are never part of the source. You can compile the app, but it won't work.

Source code, GPL or otherwise, doesn't matter.

parent

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago*

Thanks for pointing it out. I was making a project that uses this license and derivatives had to use MIT license. I forgot that it's not copyleft and so it allows derivatives to be proprietary.

parent

[–] hersh@literature.cafe 13 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Correct. This is also why Apple switched to zsh as the default shell over bash. They still ship Bash 3.2 in macOS, because from 4.0 on, Bash started using GPLv3 instead of GPLv2.

I'm not against the idea of creating proprietary software out of open-source software, if the license allows that. However, I am always against this practice of "closing the door behind you".

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

I agree. If they use open source code. They should give back. It doesn't matter if it was copyleft or permissive.