2026-11-09 16:42 UTC
You got a lot of answers that explain why it might be less of a headache for a programmer who uses their output personally & in the office and how being able to sell code they didn’t write benefits anyone selling software but not anything about the social benefits of an mit license.
If you developed a new powerful, secure and ultralight cryptographic algorithm for example, you might consider it a public good to place that code under an mit license so users of open and closed source software from freely distributed or for profit companies could benefit from it with as little friction as possible.
I’m no supporter of mit over gpl, but that argument is not something to be discounted.
Replies (2)
-
@chgxvjh@hexbear.net 2026-11-09 17:00
Yeah all seems a bit backwards. Might better to first think about why are we releasing out code in the first place why are under a license. People take this as self evident and than pick the most restrictive license they can find.
-
@Flatearth_Habeebi@lemmy.zip 2026-11-09 19:09
This makes sense, but am I allowed to ask "why do those corporations who will only use software until mit license or BSD, not want to contribute back? Wouldn’t that make them leeches?