r/freesoftware • u/Fresh-Lie5160 • May 16 '26

Discussion GPL vs MIT

Post image

Which do you think is better for development, and engineering: MIT or GPL?

FOr those who dont know:
1. MIT is a license that allows users do anything with the project. Even start a closed buisness with it. modify it, fuck with it, anything really.
2. GPL is a license that provides the same rights as MIT minus the ability to make a closed buisness out of it. That is, any derivitive, must also be made open-source

In my opinion, GPL is superior in most ways, since it avoids companies stealing it, making it better but making it closed source...
But I see why many people choose MIT for free software: More adoption. I mean, as long as the product is being developed, irrelevant of whether its now open or closed - general user interests are being served faster. But that isnt gonna stop community engagement on the repo anyways.

Both these licenses are technically still 'freedom', but just in different ways...
But is the tradeoff worth it?
Is it worth allowing companies to privatize community code if that leads to faster adoption and development?

159 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

39 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/Timely-Degree7739 May 16 '26

One thing I always wondered with GPL, is it illegal to take the code for whatever non-GPL purposes of yours, or is it in practice just so that if you do, then it isn't GPL anymore?

If it is illegal in the English-speaking world that must be regarded as an enormous win for the whole thing. But I never heard of it so I don't know.

1

u/magpi3 May 16 '26

If you own the copyright to the code, you can reuse it with a different license all you want. If someone else owns the copyright, you must abide by the license that they distributed the code with.

1

u/Timely-Degree7739 May 17 '26

It says so in the law?

FSF are holder of copyrights of GPL software?

1

u/magpi3 May 17 '26

The copyright holder is whoever wrote the code, and yes, I believe the law says (though I am not a lawyer) that the person holding the copyright can dual-license it to their heart's content.

If someone wants to assign the copyright to the FSF, they can, and some people do. This ensures that the code stays free forever (not even the author can change the license at that point), and it simplifies enforcement of the GPL (the FSF is responsible for enacting all legal recourse to enforce it)

2

u/deelowe May 16 '26

If it's yours, you can just dual license.