• lud@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Sounds good to me.

    I actually prefer the MIT license too. It’s more open.

      • lud@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        So what? Some people just want to make stuff that helps other people.

        A more open license is a way to accomplish that.

        IMO it’s weird to complain that someone makes their thing even more open source.

        • zagaberoo@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          I’m not complaining; I’m clarifying for less informed readers. It’s a subtle and often misleading distinction.

          Calling a license that leads to more proprietary software “even more open source” is absolutely debatable. The only extra restriction is disallowing free software becoming proprietary, which promotes more openness overall.

          You’re not wrong by any means, but people should understand the actual tradeoff when considering licenses.