Because it isn’t a free software license. Software licensed by the MIT license can be copied and made into proprietary software. Since (I hope) we agree proprietary software should be minimised licensing under a free software license ensures big tech can’t make there own corporate software from it without ever giving back.
It IS free software license. It just gives the freedom to turn it into proprietary too, in which case the new proprietary product is no longer licensed under MIT. Which in turn does not violate the MIT being free, as it became a different thing.
Open Source and Free Software are just two different philosophies – the licenses are the same. A Free Software license also works as an Open Source license and vice versa.
Because it isn’t a free software license. Software licensed by the MIT license can be copied and made into proprietary software. Since (I hope) we agree proprietary software should be minimised licensing under a free software license ensures big tech can’t make there own corporate software from it without ever giving back.
It IS free software license. It just gives the freedom to turn it into proprietary too, in which case the new proprietary product is no longer licensed under MIT. Which in turn does not violate the MIT being free, as it became a different thing.
No. I’m talking about the free software foundations definition of free software. The mit license is an open source licence, not a free software license.
Anyway, I’m interested as to why you don’t think the MIT license is worse than the GPL.
You linked the right definition but you are wrong. MIT is a Free Software license.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat
Open Source and Free Software are just two different philosophies – the licenses are the same. A Free Software license also works as an Open Source license and vice versa.