Why do you think the MIT License is bad? I am not the one making the claim it being bad, so I’m not the on in defending position. It’s an open source license and I like to use it too (granted my work is just little small hobby tools). I think the MIT License has pros and cons, but isn’t straight a bad license in this context.
I guess it makes coreutils vulnerable to EEE. Corps with significant stakes in Linux would be able to extend the API with proprietary functions, build ecosystems on top of that, and lock out independent development.
Imagine being unable to distribute a Linux based OS that is compatible with most of the world without proprietary age verification built in for example.
If its proprietary, then it can’t be distributed in an Open Source system anyway. We are free to use the Open Source version instead. I’m actually in favor of companies having the option to do what they want with the code, that is true Open Source in my opinion. In example a different distribution or even Microsoft takes the coreutils, and makes changes and then distributes it as proprietary software. We wouldn’t need to use it anyway.
Also which MIT Licensend software happened to this in our Linux eco system, that it became to a problem? Are there important examples?
Which also means Microsoft™ coreutils will always be “better” for general public. Yeah you are talking about open source, but this is more about Free Software ideology
Who says it will be better? It might also be worse. It might be bloated with functionality we don’t care, it might get telemetry. If its proprietary, we can’t trust it anymore. I don’t think this would be “better” just because Microsoft did something add proprietary features to it. Even the general public don’t think that Microsoft software is the best software.
Besides that, just because Microsoft does it better does not mean ours would get worse. It wouldn’t affect Linux at all.
MIT is terrible if it replaces current GPL projects. Companies will always provide their spyware infested proprietary version of the exact same thing which have one or two additional features, making open source software always behind rhe propruetary counterparts. See: Chromium->Google Chrome, Aosp->any Android os vendor
Great projects have used MIT without any issues. Godot for instance, which may also be needed, I don’t know if games made by godot could be closed source if it would use gnu license for instance.
Because Godot is already quite ibferior to its proprietary alternatives, atleast in popularity. If godot was The game engine that everyone uses, proprietary ones will come and try to have it. They can have all the godot features as well as something new from their side
Programming languages and other developer tools are very much less affected by this, since being open source is mostly a requirement for a programming language in most people’s eyes. I wouldn’t even learn a proprietary programming language when there are open ones. Being proprietary make it lose its appeal very much.
About peoprietary X11 and wayland… For whom are companies making them for? Linux users? Do you think any distro will switch to it? But i’m pretty sure most companues copy parts of code from such projects to use in theirs.
I gave Aosp- Vendor Android and chrome-chromium as examples in the beggining. Also if only linux kernel was GPLv3, android would be way more proprietary bloat free.
Unfortunately companies have even done this exact same thing even with GPL, illegally, and got away with it because open source devs usually can’t bother to file lawsuits to companies in another country
The project hasn’t had a stable release, and yes, it does certainly need more testing to uncover edge cases.
Yes, MIT bad, but one must not diss on the project just because it has been written in Rust.
The problem isn’t the language. It’s the cargo cult that surrounds it.
I see what you did there
I disagree with MIT License being bad. I agree on all other fronts of your statements.
Why don’t you think the MIT license is bad?
Why do you think the MIT License is bad? I am not the one making the claim it being bad, so I’m not the on in defending position. It’s an open source license and I like to use it too (granted my work is just little small hobby tools). I think the MIT License has pros and cons, but isn’t straight a bad license in this context.
I guess it makes coreutils vulnerable to EEE. Corps with significant stakes in Linux would be able to extend the API with proprietary functions, build ecosystems on top of that, and lock out independent development.
Imagine being unable to distribute a Linux based OS that is compatible with most of the world without proprietary age verification built in for example.
If its proprietary, then it can’t be distributed in an Open Source system anyway. We are free to use the Open Source version instead. I’m actually in favor of companies having the option to do what they want with the code, that is true Open Source in my opinion. In example a different distribution or even Microsoft takes the coreutils, and makes changes and then distributes it as proprietary software. We wouldn’t need to use it anyway.
Also which MIT Licensend software happened to this in our Linux eco system, that it became to a problem? Are there important examples?
Which also means Microsoft™ coreutils will always be “better” for general public. Yeah you are talking about open source, but this is more about Free Software ideology
Who says it will be better? It might also be worse. It might be bloated with functionality we don’t care, it might get telemetry. If its proprietary, we can’t trust it anymore. I don’t think this would be “better” just because Microsoft did something add proprietary features to it. Even the general public don’t think that Microsoft software is the best software.
Besides that, just because Microsoft does it better does not mean ours would get worse. It wouldn’t affect Linux at all.
MIT is terrible if it replaces current GPL projects. Companies will always provide their spyware infested proprietary version of the exact same thing which have one or two additional features, making open source software always behind rhe propruetary counterparts. See: Chromium->Google Chrome, Aosp->any Android os vendor
Great projects have used MIT without any issues. Godot for instance, which may also be needed, I don’t know if games made by godot could be closed source if it would use gnu license for instance.
Godot didn’t replace an existing broadly used GPL game engine, so this is irrelevant.
The logic was that with a mit license companies will provide a copy of the software infected with spyware leaving the open source project behind.
Explain why that hasn’t happened to godot.
No, the logic was that replacing a GPL project with an MIT project is bad.
Because Godot is already quite ibferior to its proprietary alternatives, atleast in popularity. If godot was The game engine that everyone uses, proprietary ones will come and try to have it. They can have all the godot features as well as something new from their side
Could you provide some examples when that had happened?
I’m looking up famous projects using mit license and in any of those that had happened.
Lua, node.js, jQuery…
Even X11 which was indeed replaced by other system… Wayland, which also uses MIT license.
Programming languages and other developer tools are very much less affected by this, since being open source is mostly a requirement for a programming language in most people’s eyes. I wouldn’t even learn a proprietary programming language when there are open ones. Being proprietary make it lose its appeal very much.
About peoprietary X11 and wayland… For whom are companies making them for? Linux users? Do you think any distro will switch to it? But i’m pretty sure most companues copy parts of code from such projects to use in theirs.
I gave Aosp- Vendor Android and chrome-chromium as examples in the beggining. Also if only linux kernel was GPLv3, android would be way more proprietary bloat free.
Unfortunately companies have even done this exact same thing even with GPL, illegally, and got away with it because open source devs usually can’t bother to file lawsuits to companies in another country
The majority of project are MIT licensed and it’s not even close.