# RE: Re: MIT vs GPL vs LGPL for open source project **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [April 9, 2006, 9:57am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-re-mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57299 "2006-04-09T09:57:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Christopher\_JSMack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Christopher\_JSMack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Christopher_JSMack)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 9:57am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-re-mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57299/1 "2006-04-09T09:57:48Z")
The MIT approach can equally well be seen as an optimistic approach (where ‘optimist’ is neither a better nor a worse thing to be than ‘pessimist’, but simply the half-empty/half-full mirror-twin). I don’t think it’s safe to assume that there’s anything culturally tranformative about open source. Give people enough financial incentive, and they will quickly attempt to own something they got for free. Most open source projects don’t present enough financial temptation, but the ones that do, can be destroyed very quickly by a too-permissive license. Imagine the alternative history of Linux if it had been licensed under MIT instead of GPL… Gazoduc wrote: > 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 ---
**Author:** ![Christopher\_JSMack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Christopher\_JSMack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Christopher_JSMack)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 4:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-re-mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57299/2 "2006-04-09T16:43:21Z")
Christopher J. Mackie wrote: > The MIT approach can equally well be seen as an optimistic approach > (where ‘optimist’ is neither a better nor a worse thing to be than > ‘pessimist’, but simply the half-empty/half-full mirror-twin). > > I don’t think it’s safe to assume that there’s anything culturally > tranformative about open source. Give people enough financial incentive, > and they will quickly attempt to own something they got for free. Most > open source projects don’t present enough financial temptation, but the > ones that do, can be destroyed very quickly by a too-permissive license. > > Imagine the alternative history of Linux if it had been licensed under > MIT instead of GPL… Please have a look here : [MIT vs GPL vs LGPL for open source project - Rails - Ruby-Forum](http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/61430#new) . I posted some ideas on how the GNU GPL has made Linux distribution oriented while the BSD license has made FreeBSD and the like research oriented. ---
**Author:** ![Christopher\_JSMack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Christopher\_JSMack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Christopher_JSMack)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-re-mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57299/3 "2006-04-09T17:22:14Z")
On 4/9/06, Christopher J. Mackie [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Imagine the alternative history of Linux if it had been licensed under > MIT instead of GPL… Instead, imagine the alternative history if BSD hadn’t been in the middle of a legal fight. That’s the _only_ reason that Linux “won”. It is generally accepted that while Linux has the mindshare, the BSDs have higher quality kernels. -austin ---
**Author:** ![Christopher\_JSMack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Christopher\_JSMack](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Christopher_JSMack)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 11:40pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-re-mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/57299/4 "2006-04-10T23:40:45Z")
On 4/9/06, Christopher J. Mackie [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > The MIT approach can equally well be seen as an optimistic approach > (where ‘optimist’ is neither a better nor a worse thing to be than > ‘pessimist’, but simply the half-empty/half-full mirror-twin). I read a thing about that once. It said optimists say the glass is half-full, pessimists say the glass is half-empty, and engineers say the glass should be half its size. – Giles B. [www.gilesgoatboy.org](http://www.gilesgoatboy.org)