If I understand LGPL correctly, any change would require the modified code to be open sourced and available, where as with MIT the developer is free to modify the code without requiring publishing it?
I want people to use my code in their games so they can get an idea to code faster, I feel like LGPL would be a limiting factor imo
Yes, if you change LGPL code you’re required to redistribute its source.
The only advantage i see in the “L” is that you can have your MIT code link with LGPL libraries without hassle and they won’t “contaminate” each other.
OTOH if you want people to screw around with your code unhindered then yeah, MIT or similar.
Well it allows rug pulling, you can go closed source or a company could fork and go closed source based on your work
Yeah, that’s part of the license and what made FreeBSD great
Fine if you’re fine with that 🌞 Others might dislike it because of that
Sure, use GPL then. The libraries I share won’t get any use if they aren’t MIT
Perhaps LGPL?
Every project has it’s requirements and every developer has opinions and ethics
If LGPL works for you and your project then LGPL works. Why not?
The long version of my comment is: If the reason is copyleft licenses, then maybe the LGPL is somewhat of a middle-ground?
If I understand LGPL correctly, any change would require the modified code to be open sourced and available, where as with MIT the developer is free to modify the code without requiring publishing it?
I want people to use my code in their games so they can get an idea to code faster, I feel like LGPL would be a limiting factor imo
Yes, if you change LGPL code you’re required to redistribute its source.
The only advantage i see in the “L” is that you can have your MIT code link with LGPL libraries without hassle and they won’t “contaminate” each other.
OTOH if you want people to screw around with your code unhindered then yeah, MIT or similar.
I am not a lawyer.