MIT Media Lab Defaults To Free and Open Source Software (networkworld.com)
Reader alphadogg cites a report on NetworkWorld: MIT Media Lab, that 30-year-old tech innovation factory that has had a huge hand in churning out everything from LEGO MindStorms to the Guitar Hero video game, has now wowed the open source and free software crowd. Lab Director Joi Ito over the weekend revealed that MIT Media Lab has changed its approach to software releases to FLOSS (free/libre/open-source software) by default.
MIT Media Lab Defaults To Free and Open Source Software
That's not what the article says at all. They've removed the extra approval required to open source projects. They are open sourcing everything by default. It's up to the project whether they release it as proprietary or open source.
Sure, but if you're going to go around braying about just how "free" it is, you should also understand that to some people, GPL is somewhat less than "free". Because it's a restrictive kind of "free".
It's A model of "free", it's not THE model of "free". Even Linux is still GPLv2, precisely because it's a much more restrictive license. You know, kinda less "free".
As you have just inadvertently summed it up, the "freedom" the GPL offers is to use it under a very specific terms, or not use it at all. Which is kinda mostly free, except in the ways in which it isn't.
You're right, people are free to not use it. So, don't be surprised when people don't because they don't want someone else's ideology crammed up their ass.
Having benefited from BSD and Apache licenses, I'd be quite inclined to use those licenses, or at least things like the LPGL so you can link to stuff ... precisely because they don't wish to assert control over how others use it. You know, they're more "free".
Oh, by the way, in quoting my posting you created an unlicensed derivative work, and you owe me twelve trillion dollars. ;-)
Lost at C:>. Found at C.