This is not freedom, it is theft.
I stopped reading here. You clearly have a misconception of this license. It is only theft if my law you are stealing. If someone releases something under the MIT-license then it is not
You also seem to have a misunderstanding of what the GPL is. If you like to it, your code must be LGPL/GPL. Some say that dynamic linking gets around the LGPL but RMS doesn’t think so (this argument continues).
So, the GPL forces open anyones software that chooses to use it. This is no freedom, it forced open source. It’s why I call the LGPL/GPL the asshole licenses. They take way the rights of those that come after them.
As an example of this (you can check fsf.org for yourself), the readline library has forced open at least one guys code. RMS himself stated this. Feel “free” to check.
And you are only half right when it comes to blending GPL code in Haiku. If it was to enter the source tree and something was linked to the GPL’d code, then everything from that on would have to be as well. But, if the GPL’d code isn’t linked to, then all is well and good with the world.
As for commercial companies selling GPL’d code. True they can, but how are they doing? I don’t know one that would be considered to be doing well.
And the MIT-license does enable people to develope and distribute further. It just doesn’t impose restrictions on it. Whether this unrestricted access to the code is good or bad is an opinion.
When people are creating software they tend not to start with, “before we have an idea, let’s think about the license we wish to release it under.” They have the idea and then talk license when it’s time the public to know about there work. This is where problems may arise.
You also seem to think that releasing a peice of code requires it to eternally be GPL’d. This is not true. The parts that are GPL’d must remain GPL’d. But]/b] at any time, the copyright holder of that code [b]can change the license. (S)he just must make sure that upto the change that code is available for people that want it.
You also seem to think that the MIT license might prevent you from modifying the code, etc. Please state the part of the MIT license that allows someone to do this. I really think you should go through http://www.opensource.org/. Might clear things up for you.
I also find it amusing that you try to liken us “not-so-keen-seeing persons” to M$. Does the MIT license require people to put out shoddy software for obsene amounts of money? Clearly not.
The only thing that the GPL/LGPL does is forces people to play by those rules. The MIT license is not so, it is true freedom. Freedom as in the developer can do as they please. Any user can do as they please. etc The only restriction is that the copyright notice must be included along with any derivations, etc.
So then, you can find the original source if the code wasn’t included for you. Just look at the license and see who made it, google and voila!
You seem not to understand the “shades of grey” in the world. Not everything is right and wrong. Perhaps you should contact the FSF or RMS himself and get them to explain this to you as you seem to have a very misguided view on the GPL.
Definition on Democracy: You have the right to do whatever the hell you want, except for limiting the rights for other individuals for them to do whatever the hell they want to.
I find it sad that a politition doesn’t know this. Fromhttp://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=democracy&action=Search+OMD
A system of government in which there is free and equal participation by the people in the political decision-making process.
Clearly in this definition the rights of the few can (and are) trampled on for the rights of the many.
Definiton on GPL: You have the right to do whatever the hell you want, except for limiting the rights for other individuals for them to do whatever the hell they want to.
If I wish to close source GPL’d code I cannot. If I wish to use GPL’d code (or link to it) but want a different open source license, such as the MIT, I cannot. I must use the GPL. The GPL limits my rights.
Definition on dictaturship: I can do whatever I want to, and you cannot (because I’m stronger than you).
3. Absolute or despotic control or power.
The leader can do whatever he wants, but this doesn’t necessarily mean others can’t do what they want.
Definition on “MIT”-license: I can do whatever I want to, and you cannot (because I’m stronger than you).
The MIT-license only states that you must keep the license along with the distribution in binary and/or source format. How is this restrictive? How is this not allowing the user to do what (s)he wants? Fact is, it doesn’t. It is far more liberal than any other license that I know that exits (except public domain).
So, you are the one that must justify this one.
What kind of limitations do the GPL-license put on you, regarding modification on sourcecode? None.
So then, being forced to send in any modifications if you release the source isn’t a restriction on the author of said modifications. Being forced to GPL his/her code b/c it is based on or a derivitive work of GPL’d code isn’t a restriction.
What definition of limitation are you using?
What kind of limitations do the “MIT”-license put on you, regarding modication on sourcecode? Several, since you cannot be sure to get the sourcecode, since there is no protection of the freedom to modify sourcecode.
Not being sure to get the source with the distribution is the freedom of the distributor. But to be certain that source exists somewhere and you can find out where from the license that is required to be there.
Again, show me in the MIT-license where it states that there is restrictions on modifying the source. Quote it.
In what way does the GPL license force you to release sourcecode as GPL? It doesn’t.
It does. It requires people if they are making a derivitive work to GPL. It requires if people are linking to it to GPL. Readline has forced open source before. Restriction, yes.
And by the way, Public Domain is the ultimate free. It’s unrestricted in every way possible. So, please provide me with a reason why it’s not.
You must be an american politition. Just by the sheer number of times you have used the term “freedom”, I would’ve guessed, but saying that anyone opinions that are against yours are communist? They are M$ like? Man would I like to have what you smoking. Your little world seems quite interesting.