[bluejekyll]

A discussion on licenses will go sideways very quickly. GPL does limit the adoption of software in certain environments. So it really depends on your goals. Do you want an OSS project that will be useable by everyone (including corporations) or do you want to guarantee that the software will always be OSS and guarantee that Corporations can’t benefit from it without contributing back (potentially requiring them to open their own proprietary code).

There’s a lot of moral perspective that people apply to this decision, but not all developers have the same goals for their software. MIT is more flexible in its use than GPL, but doesn’t help ensure that software remains open.

[bigstrat2003]

> MIT is more flexible in its use than GPL, but doesn’t help ensure that software remains open.

Sure it does. The original software will always remain open. It isn't like people can somehow take that away.

[bluejekyll]

GPL is copy left, it has a stated goal of encouraging more software to be OSS, including new contributions. That’s what I meant by software remains open. MIT on the other hand can be used in closed source situations. While the original code will remain open, future changes are not required to be open source.

[LtWorf]

They can use it on locked devices where you cannot replace it though. And then what do you do with the source? Print it and appreciate its beauty?