[roenxi]

> ...even though the person being sad didn’t contribute to making the ice cream.

But the issue of non-GPL software is the person on the receiving end might want to contribute, be technically able to contribute and indeed need to contribute to be able to keep using the software ... but then be blocked for legal reasons. The GPL doesn't care if you sell software or give it away or whatever, it is all about protecting freedom over time after the initial installation has happened.

The thing that makes the ice cream analogy ok is that the ice cream is literally synthesised into your body and comes under your complete control. If the ice-cream seller retained any sort of control over the ice cream after you'd ingested it that would be a serious problem! Both technically and morally. The GPL is aligning what happens in software to the analogy.

[GrumpySloth]

The poster I replied to complained about someone choosing MIT over GPL, not a proprietary licence over GPL. Noone is blocked from contributing for legal reasons. Quite the opposite.

[roenxi]

Riddle me this then, why use MIT over GPL?

The point of the MIT license is to make it easier to link it to proprietary software. It is setting up a situation where users will not be free. In and of itself it isn't a bad license; it just doesn't protect freedom and it can be used in ways that block people from contributing. By design.

If you expect people to treat MIT licensed software as GPL licensed software, then they should be licensing it under the GPL. That they aren't implies that the intent is different.

[tshirttime]

That they aren't implies that the intent is different.

News flash buddy. OSS devs, college and graduate students mostly, are clueless about the distinction and select whatever license tickles their fancy from GitHub's dropdown menu. They see a lot of MIT licenses floating around, recognize "MIT" as a good university, and figure they can't go wrong with it. They, like most normies, don't see how "freedom" figures into software at all. All they care about is getting a little shine before they join a FAANG after graduation.

As for why someone who does understand the distinction would choose MIT over GPL, ask Linus about why he'd "never want anything to do with the FSF" after being told to switch to GPLv3. Yes, MIT versus GPL is not the same as GPLv2 versus GPLv3 but the general concepts are the same.

[roenxi]

If you want to argue that licenses are picked randomly then OK. But in that case, people should pick the GPL; it is a better license for preserving the freedom of software users than the MIT license.

> ... ask Linus about...

Linus uses GPLv2. I personally see merit in the argument that v2 is better than v3. Neither is MIT.

If you want to use the GPL license and not associate with the FSF then cool. If Linus wants to do that, also cool. The issue is the license, not if you want to work with the FSF. The GPL also grants users freedom from the FSF.

[GrumpySloth]

> It is setting up a situation where users will not be free.

No. It is setting up a situation where users can choose between a free option A and a proprietary option B based on A. Being sad about A being too liberal is suggesting it’s more important for you that B doesn’t exist than that A exists.

> If you expect people to treat MIT licensed software as GPL licensed software,

I don’t. Contrary to GNU and FSF websites, GPL is not a synonym for freedom. Most people, outside of GNU-centric places like this post about Emacs, prefer more liberal licences.

[roenxi]

But it sounds like we have found agreement on the point that the MIT license is setting up an option B, where a person is blocked from contributing for legal reasons?

That is the big difference between MIT and GPL. With MIT licensed software, sometimes you have software that you can't legally adjust (or help others adjust). With GPL ... I mean it might be technically possible with some wildly creative approach but I haven't heard of such a thing.

> Most people, outside of GNU-centric places like this post about Emacs, prefer more liberal licences.

Controlling someone else's computer through legal means isn't liberal. I'm sure a liberal could call for that and accept a little ideological impurity.

If software is property, it has a new owner after it is sold and they can do what they like with it. That isn't what copyright does, it creates some sort of Frankenstein permanent-rent concept where the owner often doesn't maintain anything that is at odds with technical and market realities, relying heavily on the prosecution of victimless crimes. Which although arguably a desirable thing (I don't think so myself though) is illiberal.

[dctoedt]

> With MIT licensed software, sometimes you have software that you can't legally adjust (or help others adjust).

Really? The MIT license explicitly allows you to "modify" the software without restriction.

https://opensource.org/license/mit/

[roenxi]

The MIT license is explicitly designed to be compatible with building proprietary software. The key point of difference from the GPL is that you can use MIT code to create proprietary software.

I'm no lawyer, but it isn't even obvious to me that you have to MIT license a binary created directly from MIT licensed source code. "Software" seems to be the source code and therefore the binary probably isn't a copy or substantial portion of the MIT licensed program. Unless lawyers are redefining words on me it looks like I can compile MIT licensed source and distribute it under whatever alternate license I like.

But regardless, if the point of the license is to enable creating proprietary software, it is no stretch at all to speculate that it'll be used to create proprietary software.