Context:
Permissive licenses (commonly referred to as "cuck licenses") like the MIT license allow others to modify your software and release it under an unfree license. Copyleft licenses (like the Gnu General Public License) mandate that all derivative works remain free.
Andrew Tanenbaum developed MINIX, a modular operating system kernel. Intel went ahead and used it to build Management Engine, arguably one of the most widespread and invasive pieces of malware in the world, without even as much as telling him. There's nothing Tanenbaum could do, since the MIT license allows this.
Erik Andersen is one of the developers of Busybox, a minimal implementation of that's suited for embedded systems. Many companies tried to steal his code and distribute it with their unfree products, but since it's protected under the GPL, Busybox developers were able to sue them and gain some money in the process.
Interestingly enough, Tanenbaum doesn't seem to mind what intel did. But there are some examples out there of people regretting releasing their work under a permissive license.
If that is your intention, GPL would make more sense, as every improvement and development would be forced to be made available to those people, thus helping them further.
I doubt that your code helps anyone who needs/deserves to be helped, after beeing processed by big corpo.
You could think about your definition of freedom. For me: My freedom ends, where it restricts others people freedom - I shouldn't be free to rob people and call it restriction if someone forbids this.
GPL means big corporations just won't use it. If they have to make their software open source, they will just search for an alternative or make their own.
Great. No corporation is working on software for the freedom of its users.
Or pay the developer to dual license, which can and should be the preferred way for FOSS developers to fund their work?
A lot of people don't care.
Not everyone wants to deal with that (setting up payment methods, filling tax forms, ...)
In addition, as a developer for a corp, I can tell you having to pay for a license would prevent me from using most smaller libraries because the process of getting it approved and paid is too difficult, even if the money is not an issue.
You answer are reasonable justifications for why MIT is used, but they also work pretty well to illustrate the title of the post: If you are doing MIT, you are working for free. If you are working with GPL, you are working for freedom.
Which is still working for free.
If you use MIT, you make products (paid or foss) better for everyone, in a sense making the world better.
If you use GPL, you push FOSS to be more prevalent, arguably making the world better in a different way.
What I don't like is that the title minimizes the contributions of the MIT developers.
I'm pretty sure that I got paid to work on GPL software, and I am pretty sure that said software would never have been developed if I wasn't going to be paid for it.
It's not about the contribution. The MIT license still lets people study and share the code. It's Free Software. The contribution is still there. The "problem" is that those contributions can be taken and exploited by large corporations.
You say exploited, I say used. Or on the other hand, you can argue that large FOSS projects like Linux distros are exploiting smaller projects they package, since they don't share their donations...
IMO there is no issue if the wishes of the author are respected. The authors wishing for companies to use their code is just as valid as wishing to restrict it to FOSS.
There is no fundamental problem in working for free either. It's second-order effects that we should worry about. Those who are "working for free" because they "just want have software being used by people" are diluting the value of the professionals and in the long term end up being as detrimental as professional designers or photographers who "work for exposure".
If you ask me, the reason that is so hard to fund FOSS development is not because of bureaucracies, but because we are competing with privileged developers who are able to afford giving away their work for free.
I disagree. Sure, for some larger crucial projects, companies would pay. But for the majority of (small) projects, we would just handwrite an inferior solution from scratch rather than handle the bureaucracy. The result would be wasted additional effort, inferior features and more bugs.
And even if that was not the case and bureaucracy was not an issue, the question is how much better would the paid for "professional" FOSS software be compared to the free one. If it was so much better, that it justified the price, it would outcompete the free one anyway. And if it is not, then by definition it is better we use the free one.
What company are you working for whose leadership thinks that it is a better use of their time to reimplementing FOSS solutions just because they can't get it "for free"?
You seem to be having some comprehension issue, that is not what I wrote.
So what is your argument? Who is responsible for the decision-making process that leads to "hand writing an inferior solution"? Why do you think that this at all acceptable and reasonable?
You've been writing nothing but opinion-as-fact and resorting to wild rationalizations to justify your preferences, now you want to couch yourself under the questionable ethics of "it's done this way and I can not fight it, so it must be the correct thing to do"?
Let's make a simple test: if you were in charge and had the choice between spending some $$ to dual license a GPL package or to pay for the development of a GPL-only system vs paying $$$$ to do it in-house because you did not find a MIT/BSD package that does what you need, what would you do?
I did not write 90% of the things you claim I did. Go make starw-man arguments somewhere else.
If you want to talk about fallacies, here are some good examples:
Bandwagon Fallacy
Failure to understand basic microeconomics
That is true and at the same time does not contradict my point. The whole discussion is about how MIT-style licensing is not as effective for software freedom as GPL licenses. And because you do not have anything to stand on to make an argument against the statement, you keep bringing points that do not address the main issue. When asked directly what you would do, you refuse to give a definite answer.
Which is completely besides the point of the post and carries no value in the conversation.
P.S: you are still talking about "other people". Can you try to make any value judgement and own it? How about "I don't care about software freedom and prefer to get free stuff"?
Why? Because your argument has failed beyond redemption so you need something else to impotently insult?
🤡
There is no argument, dear child. There is only a value judgement being made by a silly cartoon and you suffering because you refuse to admit that you do not share those values.
Why you need to resorting to name calling and hiding yourself behind "others" just to avoid facing this uncomfortable truth, I do not know.
🤣
Fun fact: argument and discussion can be synonyms, but they can also have distinct meanings.
It's amusing to see this much projection. You say that I can't read, then proceed to misunderstand a basic sentence. You say that you don't respond because you think I will insult you, then resort to name calling.
Let us find something better to do with our lives, ok? Have a good one.
Your desperate reply is so predictable I added the quote where you use the specific word "argument" to my comment before you even posted your reply 🤣
No one else is arguing about that here you 🤡 That's just your straw-man.
Damn, that'a good.
So you wish that all corporations shouldn't pay their developers at all, because MIT licence exists?
I did not write anything even in the neighborhood of that. Go learn how to read with understanding.
Great, I'll be a bit absolute and say that if a corporation doesn't want to use my GPL code I see it as a good thing, corporations tend to be soulless leeches.