this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2025
81 points (98.8% liked)
Linux
10424 readers
566 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pass. Why are people so stupid?
You prefer GPL?
I know I do.
GPL forces mega corps to give back when they use community code.
MIT just lets companies take community code without giving anything back.
GPL code is code for the community by the community. Meta crops can use the code too but they have to give back.
Choosing MIT over GPL, LGPL, or MPL (all community oriented) in my book is pretty close to corporate bootlicking.
Lets list some GPL code developed on servers owned and operated by IBM (because they are the core developers):
Do you use any of those? About half of those projects were started by IBM. It was them that chose the GPL as a license. I wonder who forced them?
Who are the Top Contributors to the Linux kernel?
Ya, let’s keep those mega corps from using all that GPL code that YOU write.
FreeBSD just released a new version. It is entirely permissively licensed. It is clearly an anomaly that half the new features in this release have the names of companies that contributed them in the release notes. Who are these Netflix people?
I would say “how about gaming” but very little of that code is GPL. Any permissively licensed code used in gaming?
To your point, those projects must have been totally stolen by greedy mega corps right? I mean, X has been around for decades so there has been lots of time to push Xorg out of the market.
These Valve guys are big in gaming. Surely they must be stealing all our code and not giving back right? I mean, only the license would stop them (as you say). Obviously they took that MIT WINE thing and made Proton proprietary.
Right?
Companies are allowed to participate in the community. They are wallowed to use community code. Companies donating servers and resources is actually a good thing. This includes Valve. The “greediness” you talk about isn’t a factor.
Also factually none of those projects you listed were started by IBM. Half of them were started by GNU foundation. The other half were started by Redhat before it was acquired by IBM.
The way Redhat made money was by taking community code and packaging it with support guarantees for other companies. Redhat took that money and hired people to further improve that community code they were packaging. I was at Redhat at the time.
Regarding freeBSD you are forgetting the literal largest user of BSD in the world. Netflix voluntarily gives back code to the community but they aren’t forced to.
Sony is the largest user of FreeBSD in the world. They take the code. Use it improve it and give nothing back. From the PS3 forward all of their devices are based on FreeBSD.
Microsoft also is a large user of FreeBSD in a way. When they couldn’t add a proper networking stack to Windows without everything crashing all the time they’re turned to FreeBSD. Microsoft ripped out the networking code and glued it into Windows 2000. From there we got XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10, and now 11. All with community code taken and used to fight community coded operating systems.
I guess it all comes down to how you see companies. If you believe that companies will always act in the interest of the community even at the expense of competitiveness I can see how one might see MIT or BSD licenses as adequate.
GPL, LGPL, and MPL on the other hand force companies to give back when they take.
I don’t trust companies enough to use MIT. I choose GPL, LGPL, and MPL.
If a company intended to give back to the community there is no reason why they would not use GPL, LGPL, or MPL. They intend to tie back anyways. Right? MIT just lets them keep their taking but not giving options open.