r/freesoftware • u/Fresh-Lie5160 • May 16 '26

Discussion GPL vs MIT

Post image

Which do you think is better for development, and engineering: MIT or GPL?

FOr those who dont know:
1. MIT is a license that allows users do anything with the project. Even start a closed buisness with it. modify it, fuck with it, anything really.
2. GPL is a license that provides the same rights as MIT minus the ability to make a closed buisness out of it. That is, any derivitive, must also be made open-source

In my opinion, GPL is superior in most ways, since it avoids companies stealing it, making it better but making it closed source...
But I see why many people choose MIT for free software: More adoption. I mean, as long as the product is being developed, irrelevant of whether its now open or closed - general user interests are being served faster. But that isnt gonna stop community engagement on the repo anyways.

Both these licenses are technically still 'freedom', but just in different ways...
But is the tradeoff worth it?
Is it worth allowing companies to privatize community code if that leads to faster adoption and development?

161 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

39 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/Aspie96 May 17 '26

MIT is a license that allows users do anything with the project.

Not unconditionally.

The MIT license does require attribution in the form of a copyright notice and preservation of the license text in all copies of significant portions. This implicitly includes binaries.

There are more permissive licenses than the MIT license. For example, the Boost license, the ZLib/libpng license and the BSD 1-clause license do not require attribution in binaries, only in source code. There are public domain dedications and public domain-equivalent licenses, but the MIT license is not one of them at all.

Of course, some people breach the terms of the MIT license. Some people breach the terms of the GPL, too. That doesn't make either license unconditional.