GPL does not prevent using code for commercial or military use. Commerce and military deserve freedom in their computing too. ;)
It’s perhaps more accurate to say GPL (and all copyleft licenses) be free and free alike, whereas MIT (and all permisive licenses) be free to unfree.
Copyleft free software licenses keep the FAIF (Free as in freedom).
Permissive free software licenses only assure the original avails the same freedom to the users.
So yeah, better to stay on the copyleft side of free software licensing, if wanting to ensure it stays assuring users of their 4 freedoms, to use, study, share and change the software, such that released changes are shared with the same freedoms, not with extra restrictions tacked-on like can more easily happen with permissive licenses.
… And it’s right to feel ones tin-foil hat get itchy, when there’s such a replacement plan coming from the corporations, like they’re gearing for a future total usurpation.
GPL does not prevent using code for commercial or military use. Commerce and military deserve freedom in their computing too. ;)
It’s perhaps more accurate to say GPL (and all copyleft licenses) be free and free alike, whereas MIT (and all permisive licenses) be free to unfree.
Copyleft free software licenses keep the FAIF (Free as in freedom).
Permissive free software licenses only assure the original avails the same freedom to the users.
So yeah, better to stay on the copyleft side of free software licensing, if wanting to ensure it stays assuring users of their 4 freedoms, to use, study, share and change the software, such that released changes are shared with the same freedoms, not with extra restrictions tacked-on like can more easily happen with permissive licenses.
… And it’s right to feel ones tin-foil hat get itchy, when there’s such a replacement plan coming from the corporations, like they’re gearing for a future total usurpation.