

Why I use the MIT licence (by author of Rack) - Pistos2
http://chneukirchen.org/blog/archive/2009/08/why-i-use-the-mit-license.html

======
elbenshira
I use the MIT license for all my projects because it's simple and sensible. I
want to code and not worry about the politics. The MIT license gives me that.

~~~
lamby
It might be simple, but I don't agree that using a permissive license is
apolitical. Understanding this, passing your views off as "pragmatic" seems
dishonest.

The OP links to djb's site - he seems to conflate rejecting EULAs (which I
agree with) and rejecting copyright on software; am I reading him correctly?
(I mention him here because nobody can claim his stance is pragmatic at all.)

~~~
elbenshira
I mean "politics" in the sense that the MIT license is concise, unlike the
GPL.

~~~
rw
The phrase "public domain" is even more concise.

~~~
antonovka
Unfortunately, it's also legally questionable in a great number of
jurisdictions, so you have to use the MIT license instead.

~~~
derefr
Perhaps we can have a "public domain license," then. Attaching it to a project
would go something like: "This software is in the public domain, as that term
is defined under USC yadda-yadda. If your local law does not define the term
similarly, then consider the conditions of USC yadda-yadda to be the terms of
the license of this software to you."

~~~
neilc
That would actually pretty close to the MIT license, in practice. There are
major benefits to not inventing yet-another-license, and using something that
everyone is already familiar with.

------
railsjedi
I totally agree. When you put something open source, generally the more people
use it the better. GPL often just causes problems. MIT is simple, and lets
anyone do anything. If I open source something, that's what I use. Otherwise I
keep it closed.

------
jmillikin
_I realize “bad guys” don’t cease to exist—whether they “steal”, don’t share,
lock up code, or have business models in mind you don’t like. But it’s not my
fault they are that way, and neither it is my job to “teach them lessons”._

I don't think any significant body of code is written or licensed for punitive
reasons. The difference between the MIT and copyleft licenses such as CC-BY-SA
or the GPL is that the MIT license does not protect your users from hostile
middlemen.

~~~
Tichy
Please elaborate? Middlemen as in people making my code malicious and pass it
off as my code? How would that work?

~~~
jmillikin
If a middleman takes your code, compiles it, and then distributes it to the
user, then that user has no access to the source code to the version installed
on their system. This is one of the events the GPL is designed to guard
against.

In an ideal world, everybody would provide their users the same rights they
received from the copyright holder. The only licenses required would be
MIT/BSD style. I would love this; a simple license, in my opinion, is better
than the enormous complexity of the GPL. However, since in the real world
people can and do restrict user's rights to source code, the GPL is still
needed.

~~~
Tichy
But wouldn't it kind of be the user's own fault if he installs software he
doesn't see the source for? Also, how would the GPL protect the user, if the
criminal does not mind doing illegal things anyway (like distributing
malicious software)?

~~~
jmillikin
_But wouldn't it kind of be the user's own fault if he installs software he
doesn't see the source for?_

I don't believe that blaming the victim is a healthy attitude to life. "The
rape was her fault for wearing those clothes" is for banana republics and
history books, not modern times.

 _Also, how would the GPL protect the user, if the criminal does not mind
doing illegal things anyway (like distributing malicious software)?_

I didn't say it was a criminal act, and the software does not have to be
malicious. Assuming the middleman makes _any change at all_ , no matter to
what purpose, then the user no longer has access to the source code for the
application they're running. In my opinion, this is unacceptable, and I try to
avoid contributing to software under a license which allows proprietary
distribution.

~~~
antonovka
_I don't believe that blaming the victim is a healthy attitude to life. "The
rape was her fault for wearing those clothes" is for banana republics and
history books, not modern times._

I am _not_ a victim. I am willfully and with full knowledge of the
implications entering into an economic exchange that I believe to be of
benefit to myself.

------
cousin_it
_First, I live and code in Germany, where you can’t place things into the
public domain without already being dead for a long time._

Is that true? In Germany you're forbidden to make stuff and give it away?

~~~
randallsquared
In Germany (and some other jurisdictions), you're forbidden to unilaterally
disclaim responsibility for something you've written, which the public domain
implies. Instead, you can only assert that there's no warranty (for example)
via license (and/or contract, I guess?). Explicitly placing things in the
public domain has a history in the US, but actually is not directly supported
by law even there, only precedent.

------
Pistos2
The main reason I use MIT is so that I can use my open source code in my own
commercial endeavours without "infecting" that commercial codebase, which
needs to remain closed source.

~~~
jsonscripter
And you have every right to do that with the GNU Public License too, by the
way.

~~~
antonovka
Only if you own the copyright for the entire body of work. If you receive
external contributions, you must request copyright assignment from
contributors to allow you (and only you) to use the work for any purpose under
any license.

Pro-GPL arguments are full of these silly caveats.

"You can still sell the software" -- so can anyone else, or they can just give
it away for free. Now what?

"You can use it under any license you want" -- only if you acquire full
copyright for every single contribution.

"You can sell services!" -- end users don't buy "services" for consumer
software.

"Non-GPL software is immoral" -- guess who buys the "services" that cover your
development costs? Companies that ... sell proprietary software.

.. and just to demonstrate the total rational disconnect of the primary GPL
advocate, Mr. Stallman:

<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.devel/2963>

<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.devel/2970>

~~~
pyre
> "You can use it under any license you want" -- only if you acquire full
> copyright for every single contribution.

This is easy to do. _You_ are the end-point for accepting contributions. All
you have to do is require assignment of rights to you in order to accept
patches. This is obviously more difficult if you didn't do this to begin with
and now have to track down all the past contributors, though.

> "You can sell services!" -- end users don't buy "services" for consumer
> software.

Depends on what you mean by 'end user.' If the end users for my piece of
software are law firms, then yes, they would purchase support contract/other
services. Not every piece of software out there is developed for home desktop
users.

> "Non-GPL software is immoral" -- guess who buys the "services" that cover
> your development costs? Companies that ... sell proprietary software.

So the only entities that would purchase support contracts (or custom
modifications) for software are proprietary software development houses?

~~~
antonovka
_This is easy to do._

Did you ever try contributing to MySQL? Chances are very good your patch
languished for years.

As a contributor, it's a bum deal. I don't like giving away the rights to _my_
work just to support _their_ business model or moral imperative.

 _Depends on what you mean by 'end user.' If the end users for my piece of
software are law firms, then yes, they would purchase support contract/other
services._

I literally mean "end user". The consumer who would like a piece of software
to solve a particular problem on their desktop. Someone a little like me, who
uses the software I'd like to write.

Of course, I don't actually _want_ to provide services -- I want to _write
software_.

 _So the only entities that would purchase support contracts (or custom
modifications) for software are proprietary software development houses?_

No, they'll just make up a large portion of your sales (from experience) if
you're selling technically-oriented services.

~~~
pyre
> Did you ever try contributing to MySQL? Chances are very good your patch
> languished for years.

That has nothing to do with the ease that the software _owner_ can create a
system to not have to 'track down all contributors' when making a licensing
change decision. Your original post implies that this is a barrier to entry.

> I literally mean "end user". The consumer who would like a piece of software
> to solve a particular problem on their desktop. Someone a little like me,
> who uses the software I'd like to write.

So you're suggesting that I can't sell support/services for my 'law firm
software' because the paralegal/lawyers that are actually using it on their
company desktops will not be paying out of pocket for services? Huh?

> Of course, I don't actually _want_ to provide services -- I want to _write
> software._

No one is forcing you to. I'm not being 'Pro-GPL' here I'm just poking holes
in your argument.

> No, they'll just make up a large portion of your sales (from experience) _if
> you're selling technically-oriented services._

(emphasis mine) In your original post you seem to be applying that to _all
software_ that someone might choose to make GPL.

~~~
antonovka
_Your original post implies that this is a barrier to entry._

It is a barrier to entry. I provided one example, there are many others. Try
participating in the OpenJDK development process. At every turn, you'll find
that administering copyright assignment is, bluntly, a gigantic pain in the
ass.

As you already noted, it's nearly impossible to put the cat back in the bag,
if you fail to do this to begin with.

 _So you're suggesting that I can't sell support/services for my 'law firm
software' because the paralegal/lawyers that are actually using it on their
company desktops will not be paying out of pocket for services? Huh?_

No. I'm saying that _consumers_ won't buy services for _consumer software_. If
you're selling enterprise support services, you're not selling consumer
software to consumers.

 _No one is forcing you to. I'm not being 'Pro-GPL' here I'm just poking holes
in your argument._

A standard argument for the GPL is that you can (should?) sell services, not
software.

 _In your original post you seem to be applying that to all software that
someone might choose to make GPL._

If you write software within a narrow band (enterprise, requires support, sold
to non-technical organizations) you might be able to make the GPL work for
you. Like I said originally: "lots of silly caveats".

~~~
pyre
> It is a barrier to entry. I provided one example, there are many others. Try
> participating in the OpenJDK development process. At every turn, you'll find
> that administering copyright assignment is, bluntly, a gigantic pain in the
> ass.

IIRC, Samba requires you to assign over rights to contribute. Maybe take a
look at their process.

While I will admit that I have no experience with large projects like OpenJDK,
I'll venture a guess that the larger a project gets (and/or the more
submissions it gets) that harder it is to manage.

GPL is not always realistic with out side effects, but that doesn't mean it's
never realistic either (or that it can't be done if you accept the side
effects).

------
billswift
It's possible that putting things in the public domain is no longer allowed
even in the US. Peter Saint-Andre puts all of his work in the public domain,
but he wrote an essay with links almost three years ago discussing among other
things that it may not be legal <https://stpeter.im/index.php/2006/12/30/pd-
howto/> . He has a lot of other writings about PD and copyright issues here :
<https://stpeter.im/index.php/category/publicdomain/> . Note for those using
IE; IE does not recognize his CA, you need to either click through or change
the https to http.

------
mattculbreth
What Zed Shaw said

