undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTheChaplain1y ago0 comments

GPL forces you to always supply the source code but only if you distribute the application.

E.g. if you fork Nano and sell or make binaries available for download for free, people have the right to ask you for the source code.

If you don't distribute it in any form, then you don't need to.[1]

With MIT you can fork, distribute and people can't demand anything.

[1]: Contrary to popular misinformation, modified GPL software can be used by businesses as long as it is not distributed.

0 comments

mlichvar1y ago

Another way to look at it is that MIT gives freedom to the developers and GPL gives freedom to the users. It's a conflict between the two groups.

worthless-trash1y ago

> people have the right to ask you for the source code.

People you distributed binaries to have a right to the source code via the same method that the binaries are provided in. Or at least that was my understanding.

immibis1y ago

If it's a non-commercial affair, you can give them a "written offer valid for at least 3 years" and then you don't have to actually supply it unless someone asks.

In practice, this isn't a very good option to take. Much better to provide it on a "network server" as they were called at the time the license was written.

worthless-trash1y ago

This sounds like a very sane option to take, id like it to be codified in a license. Eternal availability sounds like a real hassle to maintain.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsTheChaplain1y ago0 comments

GPL forces you to always supply the source code but only if you distribute the application.

E.g. if you fork Nano and sell or make binaries available for download for free, people have the right to ask you for the source code.

If you don't distribute it in any form, then you don't need to.[1]

With MIT you can fork, distribute and people can't demand anything.

[1]: Contrary to popular misinformation, modified GPL software can be used by businesses as long as it is not distributed.

0 comments

mlichvar1y ago

Another way to look at it is that MIT gives freedom to the developers and GPL gives freedom to the users. It's a conflict between the two groups.

worthless-trash1y ago

> people have the right to ask you for the source code.

People you distributed binaries to have a right to the source code via the same method that the binaries are provided in. Or at least that was my understanding.

immibis1y ago

If it's a non-commercial affair, you can give them a "written offer valid for at least 3 years" and then you don't have to actually supply it unless someone asks.

In practice, this isn't a very good option to take. Much better to provide it on a "network server" as they were called at the time the license was written.

worthless-trash1y ago

This sounds like a very sane option to take, id like it to be codified in a license. Eternal availability sounds like a real hassle to maintain.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse