How’s it going, I'm a Adam, a Full-Stack Engineer, actively searching for work. I'm all about JavaScript. And Frontend but don't let that fool you - I've also got some serious Backend skills.
Location
City of Bath, UK 🇬🇧
Education
10 plus years* active enterprise development experience and a Fine art degree 🎨
Yup, if you want to be restrictive at all, MIT is literally antithetical to that.
MIT, on the other hand, is kind of nice when it's Facebook releasing a project. In that case it's probably a good thing that there are no restrictions. React was first released with some onerous restrictions that Facebook's lawyers cooked up and public pressure forced them to go MIT with it.
But be aware that the MIT/BSD license does not contain a patent grant. Using a MIT/BSD licensed product can still result in you having to pay the company for using the library.
This problem does not exist with, for example, the GNU v3 licenses, or the Apache License v2.
I believe pretty strongly in MIT licensing; I use libraries all the time that would be impossible to consider under any kind of restrictive non-commercial or copyleft provision.
I pretty much always release software as MIT or closed source proprietary.
If there's a chance I can make something available to the community, then I am super happy if someone uses that to help them make a living, they can do what they like with it. My Unity libraries ended up in thousands of projects, and that makes me glad to have given back something in exchange for the benefits I've had from open source. If it's the core IP of my work projects, then it won't be going public, but anything on the periphery is up for grabs.
That said, it makes total sense for full platforms like Forem to be licensed AGPL for the very compelling reasons Ben mentioned.
So I just read about the MIT license, it says that a project could be forked and closed sourced and even sold... I'm not super happy about that.
Yup, if you want to be restrictive at all, MIT is literally antithetical to that.
MIT, on the other hand, is kind of nice when it's Facebook releasing a project. In that case it's probably a good thing that there are no restrictions. React was first released with some onerous restrictions that Facebook's lawyers cooked up and public pressure forced them to go MIT with it.
But be aware that the MIT/BSD license does not contain a patent grant. Using a MIT/BSD licensed product can still result in you having to pay the company for using the library.
This problem does not exist with, for example, the GNU v3 licenses, or the Apache License v2.
I believe pretty strongly in MIT licensing; I use libraries all the time that would be impossible to consider under any kind of restrictive non-commercial or copyleft provision.
I pretty much always release software as MIT or closed source proprietary.
If there's a chance I can make something available to the community, then I am super happy if someone uses that to help them make a living, they can do what they like with it. My Unity libraries ended up in thousands of projects, and that makes me glad to have given back something in exchange for the benefits I've had from open source. If it's the core IP of my work projects, then it won't be going public, but anything on the periphery is up for grabs.
That said, it makes total sense for full platforms like Forem to be licensed AGPL for the very compelling reasons Ben mentioned.
That said, my head of legal had a bit of a wobble when I pointed out we had included modules using the wtfpl.net/ but hey ho.