points by dingi 23 hours ago | 0 comments
I don't get this complain. MIT does not forbid commercial use. So what's the fuss about?
[–] aroman 23 hours ago
[–] geerlingguy 22 hours ago
It's one reason I've favored GPL of late, after many years using MIT. Not that many people these days would explicitly follow the terms of any license.
[–] saghm 9 hours ago
There are licenses that require attribution without being copyleft though. I'm not saying the Asahi developers are wrong to use copyleft, but it's weird to me to mention "without attribution" as a sticking point when there are fairly standard permissive licenses that require attribution like Apache and BSD.
[–] tredre3 6 hours ago
MIT isn't copyleft and it does require attribution, it's basically the only requirement of it. I guess they just don't like that attribution means "put the license snippet deep in a secondary readme file hidden somewhere, along with 50 other licensees used in the project".
I think it's clear that they don't want people to use their code and close the door behind them. They also clearly want clearer attribution. I'm sorry but if those are things you desire, then deliberately choosing MIT because of a GPL hate-boner was plain stupid.
[–] theptip 9 hours ago
Right, this seems deeply confused. If you care about how your code is used, don’t use MIT. Especially, if you care about monetization, probably use GPL or AGPL.
[–] hparadiz 22 hours ago
They are mad that vibecoders are building on top of their work, making real progress, then re-releasing it as "look it works" while containing a bunch of their work. Which is sort of fair but I don't get how that works in practice because in reality anyone can read the code which is open source and do whatever they want. Licensing won't stop them.
[–] robbiep 22 hours ago
Sort of fair? Or actually fair because attribution for work is… fair?
[–] hparadiz 22 hours ago
Your credit is your first commit. After that people copy/paste patches back and forth as they will. It happened before AI. I've run patches in prod that were basically someone's random RAID controller patch posted to the Gentoo forum. If it works, it works.
> Some time ago, we were made aware of multiple attempts to exploit our permissive licensing to hijack our work, with a direct view to replacing the project and aggressively monetising Linux on Apple Silicon. In some extreme cases, in-development feature code was being lifted straight out of our personal forks and published without attribution or lazily rewritten with LLM assistance to obfuscate its origin. The MIT licence explicitly allows this, and has no carveouts to protect against bad faith actors.