# MIT vs GPL vs LGPL for open source project **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [April 8, 2006, 4:57pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245 "2006-04-08T16:57:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 4:57pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/1 "2006-04-08T16:57:27Z")
I intend to release a project I wrote with Rails. What is the right licensing scheme for a web application (content managing system) which could grow with plugins and add-ons ? Personally, I would prefer the GPL but does that mean any add-on to the CMS (like task management) will have to be GPL ? If some people contribute to the code could it still be double-licenced so that the people who would want to use it in proprietary applications could pay for a license (thus financing the work on the CMS) ? Why did Typo choose the MIT license ? So to resume all these questions : 1. cons and pros of GPL 2. add-on, plugin license if base application is GPL 3. Why MIT license for Rails, Ruby and Typo ? Many thanks for your answers, Gaspard B. ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 5:09pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/2 "2006-04-08T17:09:58Z")
Short answer. You should use the GPL over MIT only if you want to prohibit anyone from ever taking your software and making a closed-source derivative. MIT licenses let users do anything (so long as they give credit, I believe). Berkley and Apache licenses are similar to MIT. GPL says derivatives must stay open source. LGPL provides explicit exemptions to GPL for plug-in type modules. ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 5:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/3 "2006-04-08T17:16:07Z")
I guess i’ll answer this… > Why did Typo choose the MIT license ? > > So to resume all these questions : > > 1. cons and pros of GPL If typo was GPL you would have to release the source upon request of every application which uses typo in any way shape or form. This includes even just copying some lines of code from the flickr parser for example. GPL taints all source code its copied into. > 1. add-on, plugin license if base application is GPL Plugins get their own license. But if the host application is GPL licensed your addons have to be GPL if you hope that your plugin will ever be distributed with the core application. > 1. Why MIT license for Rails, Ruby and Typo ? Because it means “no strings attached” My experience is that programmers like to be able to do whatever they want. If you tell them to use your source but only if you do a,b and c then chances are they won’t particularly care for your work. In general I always got more contributions back on MIT licensed libraries then I did on GPL. – Tobi [http://shopify.com](http://shopify.com) - modern e-commerce software [http://typo.leetsoft.com](http://typo.leetsoft.com) - Open source weblog engine [http://blog.leetsoft.com](http://blog.leetsoft.com) - Technical weblog ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 5:23pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/4 "2006-04-08T17:23:37Z")
Larry W. wrote: > Short answer. You should use the GPL over MIT only if you want to > prohibit > anyone from ever taking your software and making a closed-source > derivative. So the real question I should be asking is : Should I let people create closed-source derivatives out of this CMS ? The answer would be: yes for me, no for others… Is this possible ? ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/5 "2006-04-08T17:22:13Z")
On 4/8/06, Gazoduc [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > What is the right licensing scheme for a web application (content > managing system) which could grow with plugins and add-ons ? The right licensing scheme is the one that you prefer. > Personally, I would prefer the GPL but does that mean any add-on to the > CMS (like task management) will have to be GPL ? Essentially? Yes. The GNU GPL (and it’s important to include GNU in front of it because there are other General Public Licences out there) is a Share Alike licence. The GNU GPL v2 does not allow for any restriction above and beyond what (severe) restrictions are already in the GNU GPL v2. The GNU GPL v3 will allow for _some_ additional restrictions, but not many, and it has philosophical positions that many people (myself included) make it an untenable licence as currently written. > If some people contribute to the code could it still be > double-licenced so that the people who would want to use it in > proprietary applications could pay for a license (thus financing the > work on the CMS) ? I think that you fundamentally misunderstand the GNU GPL. The GNU GPL requires that I distribute modifications to your software released under the GNU GPL to the people to whom I give binaries and that I not restrict _them_ from distributing it further (either binary or source form). If you release WBCMS (World’s Best CMS) under the GNU GPL, Evil Ltd. can take that and modify it on their site to their hearts’ content. They do not have to give you back their modifications, or give their modifications to anyone who does CMS-related work on Evil Ltd.'s website. If they sell WBECMS (World’s Best Evil CMS) to a customer, though, they have to give the customer the source code and they cannot restrict the customer from giving away the binary or source to anyone they choose. The GNU GPLv3 has a clause in it which essentially indicates that if you release WBCMS with a source download link, downstream users MAY NOT REMOVE that source download link, and the source download link must point to their modified source. This is but one of many untenable things in the GNU GPLv3. > Why did Typo choose the MIT license ? I can’t really answer that, but I can offer a guess, related to why PDF::Writer is under the MIT licence: I don’t want to restrict the choices of my users. I have made a moral choice to allow my software to be used as needed. I _like_ it when my users communicate back with me and contribute code (as they have done, and will hopefully see light of day soon), but I see no reason by which I should force them to give me code or open other code because they are using my library as a subsytem. I also have fundamental disagreements with the politics and lies surrounding GNU GPL advocacy and the political preamble in the GNU GPL itself, even though I have no problem with a Share Alike licence. > 1. cons and pros of GPL > 2. add-on, plugin license if base application is GPL > 3. Why MIT license for Rails, Ruby and Typo ? Note: Ruby is _not_ currently under an MIT licence. It’s just not solely under the GNU GPL. -austin ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 5:28pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/6 "2006-04-08T17:28:25Z")
On 4/8/06, Gazoduc [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > The answer would be: yes for me, no for others… Is this possible ? > If and only if you are the only contributor of the source … ever. Or > if you get copyright assignments. If your open source users contribute > code back, you can’t then turn around and use their code in your > closed source version. -austin ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 5:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/7 "2006-04-08T17:43:49Z")
Interestingly enough though, among some of the bigger corporate open source contributers, the gpl is preferred, as it prevents a competitor from taking advantage of the company’s contribution. ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 5:34pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/8 "2006-04-08T17:34:07Z")
Austin Z. wrote: > I think that you fundamentally misunderstand the GNU GPL. The GNU GPL > requires that I distribute modifications to your software released under > the GNU GPL to the people to whom I give binaries and that I not > restrict _them_ from distributing it further (either binary or source > form). If you release WBCMS (World’s Best CMS) under the GNU GPL, Evil > Ltd. can take that and modify it on their site to their hearts’ content. > They do not have to give you back their modifications, or give their > modifications to anyone who does CMS-related work on Evil Ltd.'s > website. If they sell WBECMS (World’s Best Evil CMS) to a customer, > though, they have to give the customer the source code and they cannot > restrict the customer from giving away the binary or source to anyone > they choose. Ok, so this means that web-applications that are not sold (they sell some kind of hosting) have the right to do whatever they like with any kind of license… as they do not sell code ? I understand that there is some dislike around the GNU GPL. Is it because of it’s idealistic views on commercial vs open software ? About the statement that a developer can make a living out of open source software just as he could with commercial applications (or even better) ? ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 5:59pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/9 "2006-04-08T17:59:52Z")
> > > > > “Gazoduc” == Gazoduc [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) writes: > Ok, so this means that web-applications that are not sold (they sell > some kind of hosting) have the right to do whatever they like with any > kind of license… as they do not sell code ? Well, yes and no. None of the major Open Source licenses in use today try to restrict how the code is used, only how it’s distributed. But it’s possible to write restrictions on use into licenses, and closed-source ones often have such restrictions. So a company can take a GPL- or BSD-licensed software and build a service on it without redistributing their changes to the code, since those licenses only talk about redistribution. > I understand that there is some dislike around the GNU GPL. Is it > because of it’s idealistic views on commercial vs open software? Sort of. The GNU GPL is a tool with which the Free Software Foundation tries to bring about political and cultural change. Not everybody agrees with their goal, and some who agree with the goals don’t agree with their means. To bring this at least slightly on-topic: You are using Ruby on Rails to build the project you’re thinking of releasing. Does it really seem right to you to release your code under a license that is more restrictive than the licenses of the tools you used to build it? – Calle D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) [http://www.livejournal.com/users/cdybedahl/](http://www.livejournal.com/users/cdybedahl/) “You know, if I garbage collected my brain I wouldn’t have anything left.” – Paul Tomblin, BofhNet ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 6:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/10 "2006-04-08T18:37:12Z")
Calle D. wrote: > To bring this at least slightly on-topic: You are using Ruby on Rails > to build the project you’re thinking of releasing. Does it really seem > right to you to release your code under a license that is more > restrictive than the licenses of the tools you used to build it? You are right about this last point. I just need to understand the choices I make. I am not a big fan of idealistic and/or political means. I like the idea to let downstream users do whatever they like. So it will be MIT license: freedom to do whatever you like with this code. ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 5:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/11 "2006-04-08T17:50:19Z")
On 4/8/06, Gazoduc [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > Best Evil CMS) to a customer, though, they have to give the customer > > the source code and they cannot restrict the customer from giving > > away the binary or source to anyone they choose. > > Ok, so this means that web-applications that are not sold (they sell > > some kind of hosting) have the right to do whatever they like with any > > kind of license… as they do not sell code ? Hmmm. It depends on how they give access to the web application, really. My web host, when I install PHP mySQL Administration, simply copies the source down to my hosting directory. Distribution of the source or binary is the key here. > I understand that there is some dislike around the GNU GPL. Is it > because of it’s idealistic views on commercial vs open software ? > About the statement that a developer can make a living out of open > source software just as he could with commercial applications (or even > better) ? No. The GNU GPL is a highly restrictive licence. However, the zealots tend to pretend that this is “more free” than an unrestrictive licence. It’s a handy piece of doublespeak that Orwell would have envied, because the people have done it to themselves without any intervention by a government. The GNU GPL doesn’t actually make a statement about a developer being able to make a living on open/closed software. It makes a moral statement about closed software and “free” software (there’s that lie again!). Stallman rejects “open source” as a useful tag, and only considers software on how “free” it is. Basically, I tend to release my software under an MIT-style licence because I don’t want to restrict my downstream users. I prefer to give greater freedom to everyone. -austin ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 3:56am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/12 "2006-04-09T03:56:42Z")
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 11:14:43AM -0400, Tobias Lütke wrote: > includes even just copying some lines of code from the flickr parser > for example. GPL taints all source code its copied into. Which, of course, is seen as a feature, not a bug, as it grows the pool of Free Software available to the world at large. - Matt ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 3:59am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/13 "2006-04-09T03:59:43Z")
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 08:43:14AM -0700, Joseph K. wrote: > Interestingly enough though, among some of the bigger corporate open source > contributers, the gpl is preferred, as it prevents a competitor from taking > advantage of the company’s contribution. s/advantage/unfair advantage/ Lock-in software is what you can’t take advantage of. But GPL’d software is out there for _everyone_ to take advantage of – it’s just that, if you take advantage of some GPL’d software, you have to let others then take similar advantage with your modifications. It levels the playing field, and all that. - Matt ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 5:33am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/14 "2006-04-09T05:33:55Z")
> > If typo was GPL you would have to release the source upon request of > > every application which uses typo in any way shape or form. This > > includes even just copying some lines of code from the flickr parser > > for example. GPL taints all source code its copied into. > > Which, of course, is seen as a feature, not a bug, as it grows the pool of > Free Software available to the world at large. Its easy to make this mistake. Good programmers love sharing beautiful code. In a GPL project you get all the code back, no matter what the quality. That leads to a lot of useless code for the project lead to wade through. The beautiful code, the one you really want, you get in a MIT project. But you even get such code by people using your project for commercial reasons. As all the extractions from projects such as Basecamp clearly show this is the code a open source project lead wants to get his hands on. To summarize this quickly: MIT licence leads to fewer but higher quality code contributions. – Tobi [http://shopify.com](http://shopify.com) - modern e-commerce software [http://typo.leetsoft.com](http://typo.leetsoft.com) - Open source weblog engine [http://blog.leetsoft.com](http://blog.leetsoft.com) - Technical weblog ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 5:33am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/15 "2006-04-09T05:33:56Z")
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 11:49:55AM -0400, Austin Z. wrote: > No. The GNU GPL is a highly restrictive licence. However, the zealots > tend to pretend that this is “more free” than an unrestrictive licence. > It’s a handy piece of doublespeak that Orwell would have envied, because > the people have done it to themselves without any intervention by a > government. Wow, you’ve really got a burr in your shorts. The GPL is a licence whose stated aim is to ensure that software is free _for_ _users_, which was a pretty revolutionary concept at the time (and, for the most part, still is). It doesn’t even go particularly far about doing so, either – it doesn’t require you to give up any more to your downstream users as your upstream users gave up for you. On the one hand, it’s great that you’re giving downstream users the ability to make your changes closed, but you have to balance that against the potential loss of freedom for other people who are downstream from your downstream users. It’s not a simple tradeoff, and different people will value different outcomes differently. But calling the GPL “doublespeak”, or it’s advocates “zealots”, is pretty nasty. - Matt ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 4:11am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/16 "2006-04-09T04:11:46Z")
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 05:34:07PM +0200, Gazoduc wrote: > > though, they have to give the customer the source code and they cannot > > restrict the customer from giving away the binary or source to anyone > > they choose. > > Ok, so this means that web-applications that are not sold (they sell > some kind of hosting) have the right to do whatever they like with any > kind of license… as they do not sell code ? The key to understanding here is not to think about selling, but rather ‘distributing’. They also don’t have the ability to do whatever they like with any licence, because they have to adhere to the terms of the licence – it’s just that licences like the GPL only restrict the act of redistribution. > I understand that there is some dislike around the GNU GPL. Is it > because of it’s idealistic views on commercial vs open software ? About Not commercial software, but rather proprietary (or more accurately ‘lock-in’) software. > the statement that a developer can make a living out of open source > software just as he could with commercial applications (or even better) > ? The GPL doesn’t talk about how much money you can or can’t make out of software, it’s all about growing the “software commons”. - Matt ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 7:31am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/17 "2006-04-09T07:31:50Z")
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 11:32:58PM -0400, Tobias Lütke wrote: > > > If typo was GPL you would have to release the source upon request of > > > every application which uses typo in any way shape or form. This > > > includes even just copying some lines of code from the flickr parser > > > for example. GPL taints all source code its copied into. > > > > Which, of course, is seen as a feature, not a bug, as it grows the pool of > > Free Software available to the world at large. > > Its easy to make this mistake. Good programmers love sharing beautiful code. What mistake? > In a GPL project you get all the code back, no matter what the quality. No you don’t. > That leads to a lot of useless code for the project lead to wade through. That’s a feature of open contributions, not the licence. > The beautiful code, the one you really want, you get in a MIT project. Do you realise just how ridiculous that sounds? > To summarize this quickly: MIT licence leads to fewer but higher > quality code contributions. How does the licence manage to dictate that only master programmers are going to write code for your project? - Matt – [On LDAP] “Lightweight my ass. The fact that X.509 has the weight of an 18-wheel rig doesn’t make a minivan something you shove in your backpack.” – Zed Pobre, ASR ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 8:57am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/18 "2006-04-09T08:57:51Z")
Gazoduc wrote: > It is true that with the MIT license, I ensure my “children” get the > code but not my “grandchildren”. The question boils down to : will my > “children” do anything useful with this code and will they want to pass > their work on to their “children” ? > > The GNU GPL can be seen as a pessimistic approach: if we do not enforce > lock-out, all code will soon be locked-in. > > Maybe this was correct ten years ago, but I do not think it like this > now as open source is becoming some kind of culture (things can change > though). > > Another point : I am not against locked-in code. I am happy that Apple > could build mac os X on top of a BSD licence. If Darwin was GPL, maybe > Cocoa would simply not exist… PS: or another example, closer from Rails : Basecamp. If Rails was GNU GPL, then Basecamp would have to be open source. Anyone could install Basecamp anywhere. There would be very cheap Basecamp hosting making money without adding much value and out goes 37signals… ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 8:30am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/19 "2006-04-09T08:30:22Z")
Matthew P. wrote: > On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 11:49:55AM -0400, Austin Z. wrote: > > > No. The GNU GPL is a highly restrictive licence. However, the zealots > > tend to pretend that this is “more free” than an unrestrictive licence. > > It’s a handy piece of doublespeak that Orwell would have envied, because > > the people have done it to themselves without any intervention by a > > government. > > Wow, you’ve really got a burr in your shorts. > > The GPL is a licence whose stated aim is to ensure that software is free > _for_ _users_, which was a pretty revolutionary concept at the time > (and, > for the most part, still is). It doesn’t even go particularly far about > doing so, either – it doesn’t require you to give up any more to your > downstream users as your upstream users gave up for you. On the one > hand, > it’s great that you’re giving downstream users the ability to make your > changes closed, but you have to balance that against the potential loss > of > freedom for other people who are downstream from your downstream users. It is true that with the MIT license, I ensure my “children” get the code but not my “grandchildren”. The question boils down to : will my “children” do anything useful with this code and will they want to pass their work on to their “children” ? The GNU GPL can be seen as a pessimistic approach: if we do not enforce lock-out, all code will soon be locked-in. Maybe this was correct ten years ago, but I do not think it like this now as open source is becoming some kind of culture (things can change though). Another point : I am not against locked-in code. I am happy that Apple could build mac os X on top of a BSD licence. If Darwin was GPL, maybe Cocoa would simply not exist… ---
**Author:** ![gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/g/c5a1d2/32.png) [@gazoduc](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/gazoduc)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 10:43am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245/20 "2006-04-09T10:43:23Z")
Sun, 09 Apr 2006, Gazoduc skrev: > Another point : I am not against locked-in code. I am happy that Apple > could build mac os X on top of a BSD licence. If Darwin was GPL, maybe > Cocoa would simply not exist… Ore another example: If Linux used BSD licence, Microsoft would have the opportunity to make an closed source Linux who would make it possible to run MS programs, better integration with Windows etc. witch would get a lot of existing and new Linux users, and that way be a big hit against the free software movement. I think it’s better not to give MS and other anti-free software companies such opportunities. Besides: If there had not existed any BSD Unix, maybe Apple would have build OS X on top of Linux, and been forced to give back their further development on top of Linux. I’m not in doubt what I would prefer. - Henrik [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57245.md?page=2)