GPL code can also be used for commercial and military use. What are you smoking where you think that is even remotely true? Genuinely asking. It feels like people on your side of the argument have all learned what you have from the same, ill informed source.
GPL impose that derivative work is GPL, not MIT. Indeed, a commercial and a military use could embed work under GPL licence, but I suppose to point ou which part is under GPL. Which is more complicated than MIT, that you could use and label under any licence you want.
I agree that it suppose that those organisations give a shit about law (clearly, they don’t), however a GPL infraction could be used against those organisation, next to other infractions for a trial and type of of actions.
If I’m a military supplier of nukes to the government, I can freely use GPL and there’s no legal issue with that. You cannot request the nuclear launch software or the guidance control software even if they use GPL licensed code within it. Why? Because they don’t distribute said code to the public. If you develop something for private use, and it never gets a public release there’s no obligation or requirement to release the source! This is especially true for a government contractor that only makes software for a single customer (the government).
I think we’re agreeing that your claim was nonsense at this point, but I still don’t understand where people get these strange ideas about how GPL stops commercial or military use outside of very specific and frankly niche ways. If this is your reason for preferring GPL, it’s poorly thought out.
In purely private (or internal) use—with no sales and no distribution—the software code may be modified and parts reused without requiring the source code to be released. For sales or distribution, the entire source code needs to be made available to end users, including any code changes and additions—in that case, copyleft is applied to ensure that end users retain the freedoms defined above.
GPL does not prevent using code for commercial or military use. Commerce and military deserve freedom in their computing too. ;)
It’s perhaps more accurate to say GPL (and all copyleft licenses) be free and free alike, whereas MIT (and all permisive licenses) be free to unfree.
Copyleft free software licenses keep the FAIF (Free as in freedom).
Permissive free software licenses only assure the original avails the same freedom to the users.
So yeah, better to stay on the copyleft side of free software licensing, if wanting to ensure it stays assuring users of their 4 freedoms, to use, study, share and change the software, such that released changes are shared with the same freedoms, not with extra restrictions tacked-on like can more easily happen with permissive licenses.
… And it’s right to feel ones tin-foil hat get itchy, when there’s such a replacement plan coming from the corporations, like they’re gearing for a future total usurpation.
How is MIT poisonous? It’s still FOSS
Until it isn’t. MIT is permissive and allow to use code for commercial or military use. GPL work have to stay GPL
That free work for corpo
GPL code can also be used for commercial and military use. What are you smoking where you think that is even remotely true? Genuinely asking. It feels like people on your side of the argument have all learned what you have from the same, ill informed source.
GPL impose that derivative work is GPL, not MIT. Indeed, a commercial and a military use could embed work under GPL licence, but I suppose to point ou which part is under GPL. Which is more complicated than MIT, that you could use and label under any licence you want.
I agree that it suppose that those organisations give a shit about law (clearly, they don’t), however a GPL infraction could be used against those organisation, next to other infractions for a trial and type of of actions.
If I’m a military supplier of nukes to the government, I can freely use GPL and there’s no legal issue with that. You cannot request the nuclear launch software or the guidance control software even if they use GPL licensed code within it. Why? Because they don’t distribute said code to the public. If you develop something for private use, and it never gets a public release there’s no obligation or requirement to release the source! This is especially true for a government contractor that only makes software for a single customer (the government).
I think we’re agreeing that your claim was nonsense at this point, but I still don’t understand where people get these strange ideas about how GPL stops commercial or military use outside of very specific and frankly niche ways. If this is your reason for preferring GPL, it’s poorly thought out.
GPL does not prevent using code for commercial or military use. Commerce and military deserve freedom in their computing too. ;)
It’s perhaps more accurate to say GPL (and all copyleft licenses) be free and free alike, whereas MIT (and all permisive licenses) be free to unfree.
Copyleft free software licenses keep the FAIF (Free as in freedom).
Permissive free software licenses only assure the original avails the same freedom to the users.
So yeah, better to stay on the copyleft side of free software licensing, if wanting to ensure it stays assuring users of their 4 freedoms, to use, study, share and change the software, such that released changes are shared with the same freedoms, not with extra restrictions tacked-on like can more easily happen with permissive licenses.
… And it’s right to feel ones tin-foil hat get itchy, when there’s such a replacement plan coming from the corporations, like they’re gearing for a future total usurpation.