yeahh I’ll stick with Krita as it’s licensed under GPLv3
The MIT license helps capitalist overlords and leaves developers and users with nothing as the only thing that the MIT license requires is for the user/dev to essentially pay with exposure by sharing the MIT license that contains a list of contributors :/
The GPL license provides systemic trust as it requires users/devs to contribute any improvements to the project back to the developers under the same license hence ensuring the cycle of trust and furthering progress
Sources:
That’s a dumb argument honestly
Foss is foss
All copy left software is foss but not all foss is copy left.
If gnu utils where MIT licensed instead of GPL we wouldn’t have the free routers that we have today.
Cisco fought against opening things up tooth and nail but was forced to because of their use of community GPL code. If the code was MIT the community would have nothing back.
MIT lets companies use community work to enrich themselves without giving back.
GPL forces companies to give back if they want to or not.
Why let companies enrich themselves at the cost of society if we don’t have to?
You are hating to hate at in the end. (Otherwise known as gate keeping)
Attacking instead of supporting is a great way to chase people away. It was very bad in the early 2000’s but these days it is much better. We don’t need to revert back to cult like behavior. In really this has nothing to do with licensing. You are seemly wanting to limit who can be a part of Linux so you can feel special. (I’ve got news for you, you aren’t)
Did you respond to the wrong post? I’m not gate keeping or attacking at all.
No one is holding anyone back or stopping anyone from participating here. No one wants to limit who can use Linux. I want everyone to use Linux actually. That would be amazing.
It’s not for the same thing as krita, this is for quick edits, it’s like an enhanced ms paint
Holding the use of a less restrictive license against the project because some unrelated party could come along and fork it without contributing back seems like a strange position to me.
I’m also not really sure what that criticism of MIT is trying to say. Third party contributors don’t get paid for their work? GPL projects also don’t have to pay people submitting changes.
Holding the use of a less restrictive license against the project because some unrelated party could come along and fork it without contributing back seems like a strange position to me.
While I’m not sure how to interpret this, I can answer the second which might help answer your first statement.
I’m also not really sure what that criticism of MIT is trying to say. Third party contributors don’t get paid for their work? GPL projects also don’t have to pay people submitting changes.
It’s not about payment but primarily about reciprocation:
[Case 1] I have a project licensed under MIT
P1: “Hey thanks for the contributions I’ll add your name to the MIT license.”
P2: “Dope, btw I see your company uses it for xyz can I see what the new project looks like?”
P1: “Fuck no”
P2: “You’re joking right”
P1: “MIT license, read it and weap”
End scene.
[Case 2] I have a project licensed under GPL-v(2,3 or AGPL-3.0)
P1: “Hey thanks for the contributions! Here’s the new changes.”
P2: “No worries and thanks! I hope the project improves even more.🫡”
End scene.
