massachusetts institue of technology. richard stallman is from there. most linux utilities were developed there and a lot of open source projects were and are made there!!! is it the best university for linux and open source??
massachusetts institue of technology. richard stallman is from there. most linux utilities were developed there and a lot of open source projects were and are made there!!! is it the best university for linux and open source??
Any license can be harmful in some scenarios. I like MIT, because its simple and allows basically anything. There are some situations in which GPL is harmful too (such not being able to mix with any type of license) and would benefit from MIT. One can also go from MIT to GPL, but not other way, if everything is licenses in GPL.
For complex programs that are important and where the source code must stay open, GPL is perfect. Like always, every license has its harmful scenarios and its use cases.
GPL licenced software merely has to comply with the GPL - make your changes available to all etc. The whole point of the GPL is to ensure that you can take but enforces that you give back too. It’s the Stone Soup thing.
MIT is loved by say Apple because they can take your work, do their thing and not have to contribute back. To be fair, Appley stuff is now quite a long way away from BSD!
As I’m feeling charitable, I should also point out that CUPS is/was largely Apple driven, as is Avahi/Bonjour. I can deploy a Linux box and expect it to find and setup available printers without having to do anything.
GPL can prevent the linking of external and non-free third party libraries. It can add an increased legal complexity to the code base. It’s difficult for MIT licenses to have that “clashing” between licenses.
There are variations to GPL that allow the linking of non-free third party libraries. Either way, consult your lawyer before using GPL code.