Post #3667291

2026-07-08 08:11 UTC

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.

Replies (2)

@thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 2026-07-08 08:44

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.

Open ##3667716
@TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe@lemmy.world 2026-07-12 06:18

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

Open ##3755176