128
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2026
128 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
66287 readers
349 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Because it isn't a free software license. Software licensed by the MIT license can be copied and made into proprietary software. Since (I hope) we agree proprietary software should be minimised licensing under a free software license ensures big tech can't make there own corporate software from it without ever giving back.
It IS free software license. It just gives the freedom to turn it into proprietary too, in which case the new proprietary product is no longer licensed under MIT. Which in turn does not violate the MIT being free, as it became a different thing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For the same reason Windows is more popular, the proprietary ones will be more popular. Then comes Embrace, Extend and Extinguish. They add things that are only in their version. Apps uses it forcing reimplementation in original(open) version or breaking compatibility with it( I think thats how Google+ or something made XMPP kinda obsolete )
We might be onto different goals here. I want majority of people adopt Free software, rather than just me personally living with it only(which create more problems for me).
The thing about permissive licensing is that ptoprietary softwares get whatever they need from open source and whatever they do with it is unavailiable back to open source which is one way free labour for them