Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

7
  • An author might want to express copyleft, so it's not clear if a reciprocal license does suffer from something -or- adds something. It just depends what the original author wants to express. Commented Aug 28, 2011 at 12:02
  • @hakre: Viral licenses are more restrictive than non-viral ones; they do not add any 'freedom', they merely restrict usage - which is exactly the thing they add. Commented Aug 28, 2011 at 15:31
  • Well that's easy to counter-argue: BSD/MIT licenses allow to put more restrictions on users. Actually it's intended to allow that. Depends on the author whether he needs that or not. These days it's quite modern to think about Freedom only for one's own, and that type of Freedom always includes to not care about anybodies else freedoms. Really a pitty. Commented Aug 28, 2011 at 16:28
  • @hakre: If I publish something under MIT, you are free to re-publish under a different license, but my completely free version will still be available; your attempt at limiting the user's rights is not going to be effective as long as my fully free version is out in the wild. My opinion about the GPL, in short, is that you cannot force freedom upon others. Commented Aug 28, 2011 at 21:55
  • Your MIT package will be only limited to itself, not the derivates by others (by design), I think that's a difference worth to point out. It maybe is as well a cultural thing what one expects to share and getting shared. Nobody is forced by the GPL to anything anyway, so not even to freedom. Always respect the authors decision, she might have some other opinion like me and you. Commented Aug 28, 2011 at 22:40