|
|
|
|
|
by karmakaze
798 days ago
|
|
An MIT license requires no propagation of software changes. I would say that a Copyleft licenses enforce software to be out-in-world. The lawyers needed to find out how not to propagate changes. This reverse duality depends on whether the 'software' propagated is that which uses licensed software or evolution in public of the licensed software itself. If Linux itself was MIT licensed we would have a much messier world of fragmented, semi-working, partially compatible, proprietary platforms. |
|