|
|
|
|
|
by daveguy
3552 days ago
|
|
It takes a really warped interpretation of open source to claim MIT is a closed source license. Not even Stallman agrees with that. In his essay on selling exceptions to GPL he gave this argument[0]: "
If that implication is valid, it would also apply to releasing the same program under a noncopyleft free software license, such as the X11 license. That also permits such embedding. So either we have to conclude that it's wrong to release anything under the X11 license -- a conclusion I find unacceptably extreme -- or reject this implication. Using a noncopyleft license is weak, and usually an inferior choice, but it's not wrong. In other words, selling exceptions permits some embedding in proprietary software, and the X11 license permits even more embedding. If this doesn't make the X11 license unacceptable, it doesn't make selling exceptions unacceptable
" It seems everyone except you, including the father of copyleft, agrees that the MIT license is a free and open source license. [0]:https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions |
|
Seems pretty close source friendly to me.