Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by burntsushi 248 days ago
> I think the obvious answer is whatever tool you're attempting to replicate/supplant, you should use the same (or a compatible) license.

Is this really obvious? Did GNU coreutils do this for the project it was attempting to replicate/supplant?

> even something like GPLv2 or anything else is better than MIT or public domain-tier licenses

That's an opinion, not a fact.
1 comments
DaSHacka 248 days ago
> That's an opinion, not a fact.

Except on average, how often do GPL projects get forked and modified without the changes getting released to the public versus with MIT projects? Which one benefits end users more?

link
hnlmorg 248 days ago
Happens all the time; even with GPL projects.

Technically with GPL, you only need to provide the source if requested. You don't specifically need to publish those changes ahead of time. And as it happens, some businesses don't even share the source when requested.

link
burntsushi 248 days ago
Except what? Do you actually have data?

Also interesting your silence about my other point. Tell me, did GNU coreutils copy the license of its ancestor?

link