# RE: Re: MIT vs GPL vs LGPL for open source project **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [April 9, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-re-mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/93773 "2006-04-09T18:57:41Z")\ **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, 6:57pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-re-mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/93773/1 "2006-04-09T18:57:41Z")
Austin, if it makes you feel better to call anyone who disagrees with you a zealot, enjoy. But from where I sit, it’s a little more complicated than that. – You, and the people supporting licenses like MIT, use a definition of ‘freedom’ that maximizes choice for the largest number of people, optimizing across the _first_ round of choices after you release the license. That trades-off more choices for more people about what to do with the licensed code today for a risk that subsequent changes may permit fewer choices for some people in future. Nothing wrong with that, and there are plenty of people out there who use a similar definition. – Stallman and the people advocating GPL use a definition of ‘freedom’ that maximizes choice for the largest number of people, optimizing across _all future_ rounds. That trades-off a reduced immediate ‘freedom’ for some (the GPL restrictions you mention) for a guarantee of the same amount of ‘freedom’ for all people in all future rounds. Despite your personal FUD, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, either. And clearly, there are a lot of people who use a similar definition. Despite what you may think, this doesn’t mean that MIT is better than GPL – or that GPL is better than MIT – or that BSD is better than Linux – or even that Betamax is better than VHS ;-). It is literally impossible to predict which strategy will result in greater total ‘freedom’ without making some pretty strong assumptions about (a) the relative size of the first v. subsequent-round audiences, (b) the proportion of each audience that would actually want to do something contrary to the license in question if given the opportunity, and © the current context and future direction of the particular OS application and its community. In other words, both options maximize choice for an arbitrarily large group of people: they just each define the group differently. And as both economists and psychologists can tell you, when used in a predictive capacity, those two strategies are more a matter of individual taste than right v. wrong. Some people ride motorcycles off-road without helmets; others won’t get out of bed unless the insurance policy is paid-up. Taste for risk varies, as does future-orientation. So feel free to “go with your gut” in your own decision process – but why not cut a little more slack for those whose guts tell them differently? --Chris Austin Z. wrote: > Instead, imagine the alternative history if BSD hadn’t been in the > middle of a legal fight. ---
**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, 9:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-re-mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/93773/2 "2006-04-09T21:00:23Z")
On Sunday, April 09, 2006, at 12:55 PM, Christopher J. Mackie wrote: > and there are plenty of people out there who use a similar definition. > Despite what you may think, this doesn’t mean that MIT is better than > In other words, both options maximize choice for an arbitrarily large > differently? --Chris I was about to post along the same lines, but you totally nailed it. Nicely said. ---
**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, 6:05am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-re-mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/93773/3 "2006-04-10T06:05:49Z")
On 4/9/06, Christopher J. Mackie [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Austin, if it makes you feel better to call anyone who disagrees with > you a zealot, enjoy. But from where I sit, it’s a little more > complicated than that. [… nonsensical and incorrect text elided …] Please do me a favour and actually _read_ what I write. The claim of zealotry isn’t related to licence choice. In fact, in this very thread, I have indicated that the _aims_ of the GNU GPL (e.g., Share Alike) are very good. There’s no FUD there. The FUD comes from GNU GPL zealots who claim that the GNU GPL is “more free” than the MIT or BSD licences. Measurably, it is not so. The choice of the restrictions provided by the GNU GPL or a similar licence may be desirable or even preferable. But where I have a problem – and where the zealot claim _sticks_ – is that is isn’t “my” side trying to change definitions and use terms in ways that render them ultimatelyi meaningless. > Despite what you may think, this doesn’t mean that MIT is better than > GPL – or that GPL is better than MIT – or that BSD is better than > Linux – or even that Betamax is better than VHS ;-). It is literally > impossible to predict which strategy will result in greater total > ‘freedom’ without making some pretty strong assumptions about (a) the > relative size of the first v. subsequent-round audiences, (b) the > proportion of each audience that would actually want to do something > contrary to the license in question if given the opportunity, and (c) > the current context and future direction of the particular OS > application and its community. I have not made any statements about the relative better choice of a GNU GPL-like licence over an MIT licence. Others in this thread have; I have not. I have indicated that there is “something rotten in the state of Denmark” with the way that the GNU GPL is evangelized; I have expressed my preference for the MIT licence; I have not held back on pointing out that there are people, primarily those who senselessly advocate the GNU GPL to the exclusion of all ese, who play Humpty Dumpty[1]. […] > So feel free to “go with your gut” in your own decision process – but > why not cut a little more slack for those whose guts tell them > differently? --Chris I haven’t said that people shouldn’t _ever_ choose the GNU GPL. Ever. I challenge you to find where I have said so. I have said that people shouldn’t choose the GNU GPL under false pretenses or for the wrong reasons. I would argue that they shouldn’t choose _any_ licence under false pretenses or for the wrong reasons. I just happen to think that the evangelism and groupthink around the GNU GPL leads to both false pretenses and the wrong reasons. There is software that probably _should_ be under the GNU GPL. But that is software where the authors have considered their licence choice carefully. -austin [1] “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.” [http://sunsite.tus.ac.jp/coll/alice/alice\_25.html](http://sunsite.tus.ac.jp/coll/alice/alice_25.html) ---
**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, 12:47pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/re-re-mit-vs-gpl-vs-lgpl-for-open-source-project/93773/4 "2006-04-10T12:47:30Z")
Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Austin Z. skrev: > There is > software that probably _should_ be under the GNU GPL. But that is > software where the authors have considered their licence choice > carefully. I’m not totally in opposition to this. Generally I would say: If you, or the group who are writing a software might think of making it closed source in the future for commercial reasons: Then of course you can’t use GNU GPL. If this is the case, then I think you should inform eventually other contributors about this possibility (so amateur’s like me can take that into consideration if we should think of spending time on the software). If making the software closed source not will be an option, then I think you generally should use the GNU GPL license (of reasons I have mentioned in other emails). There are no morally wrong with either of this choices. - Henrik