Hacker News

points by solyin 1 day ago | 0 comments

That is the problem. MIT isn't GPL. In our new AI powered future, we want the source so we can fix it ourselves.

MIT is a source code license. If you have MIT licensed source code then you already have the source code and can fix it yourself. No different than GPL.

[–] gatlin 1 day ago

It is materially different to the GPL and inferior in all such ways.

[–] burnte 17 hours ago

I disagree on both points. The only difference is the lack of a requirement to share your changes under MIT. That makes it only inferior depending on your perspective. You are entirely allowed to feel it's inferior, but it's not FACTUALLY inferior, just different.

[–] dekhn 19 hours ago

I think it's time to recognize that copyleft as an idea is not great and LGPL makes the license even worse. I want licenses that don't have a core philosophy that attempts to overturn existing copyright.

[–] jeremyjh 1 day ago

Sudo is already MIT. What are you concerned about here? Why hasn't it already happened?

[–] criemen 1 day ago

Well, in the AI-powered future, you can reverse engineer and patch about anything without the source, too. That's not an argument against the GPL, but everything you can download is now effectively source-available for a modest fee to an inference provider.

[–] thesuperbigfrog 1 day ago

> That is the problem. MIT isn't GPL. In our new AI powered future, we want the source so we can fix it ourselves.

GPL would be ideal, MIT is okay, but in our new AI-powered future, we may not even need the source code:

https://bramble-apps.github.io/

Maybe all software will become open source or free software?