this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
29 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
7115 readers
350 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system
Also check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
licensed under MIT
yeahh I'll stick with Krita as it's licensed under GPLv3
The MIT license helps capitalist overlords and leaves developers and users with nothing as the only thing that the MIT license requires is for the user/dev to essentially pay with exposure by sharing the MIT license that contains a list of contributors :/
The GPL license provides systemic trust as it requires users/devs to contribute any improvements to the project back to the developers under the same license hence ensuring the cycle of trust and furthering progress
Sources:
That's a dumb argument honestly
Foss is foss
All copy left software is foss but not all foss is copy left.
If gnu utils where MIT licensed instead of GPL we wouldn’t have the free routers that we have today.
Cisco fought against opening things up tooth and nail but was forced to because of their use of community GPL code. If the code was MIT the community would have nothing back.
MIT lets companies use community work to enrich themselves without giving back.
GPL forces companies to give back if they want to or not.
Why let companies enrich themselves at the cost of society if we don’t have to?
Is copyleft a requirement for FOSS?
Sadly no. Licenses like MIT or BSD are free as in freedom but don’t stop others from taking that freedom away in future releases.