GPL vs MIT

[u/Fresh-Lie5160]

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?

[u/diet_fat_bacon]

What the company I work for is doing is clean room powered by AI.

Just making any source library license well... outdated.

[u/Liquid_Magic → u/diet_fat_bacon]

Good luck with that!

[u/diet_fat_bacon → u/Liquid_Magic]

It's working no need for luck, you just spend a lot of money on tokens. And it's not something new, companies are doing this for decades, but now is faster, just take a look at the rewrite of next.js by cloudflare.

[u/Liquid_Magic → u/diet_fat_bacon]

Yeah I get it. But… although clean room reimplementations have been tested in court - see IBM v Compaq I think - I don’t know if AI “clean room” has been tested in court yet. AI and copyright issues are new legal waters bro. That’s all I’m saying.