I would understand if Canonical want a new cow to milk, but why are developers even agreeing to this? Are they out of their minds?? Do they actually want companies to steal their code? Or is this some reverse-uno move I don’t see yet? I cannot fathom any FOSS project not using the AGPL anymore. It’s like they’re painting their faces with “here, take my stuff and don’t contribute anything back, that’s totally fine”

  • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
    1·
    10 days ago

    Maybe there could be another reason why people choose MIT to begin with:

    When you start a new repo on github it makes suggestions which license to use, and I bet many people can’t be arsed to think about it and just accept what they’re offered. [My memory is a little patchy since I very rarely use github anymore, but I definitely remember something like this.] And maybe github tends to suggest MIT.

    That said, please undestand that many, many git platforms exist and there is no reason at all to choose one of the two that actually have the word git in them.

      • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
        1·
        10 days ago

        Ah, OK. No, of course not. I was thinking more about hobby developers.

        But somebody else already pointed it out: MIT makes a project more attractive for investors. Follow the $£€

        • Ferk@lemmy.ml
          2·
          8 days ago

          I think many hobby developers also see “hobby” developing as part of their career, so they would happily try and have their hobby align with future employment possibilities. Since companies avoid GPL, those devs will rather choose a license that is more attractive to those potential employers when they see their portfolio.