@nikola you can’t take damus ios code and relicense it as mit. Thats not how gpl works.
Discussion
Quikc rant about licenses:
Few understand that MIT is a free to take license designed for corporate takeover and can be relicensed under whatever the entity doing a corporate takeover of your project wants, and they can then use the State to prevent you from competing with them.
GPL and MPL exist to prevent this. They are share-alike licenses and put you on a level playing field with corporates.
Out of pure self-interest, I will not contribute to an open source project that does not guarantee me, as contributor, that my patches and changes will never be turned into private code, and used against me, so this rules out MIT/BSD licenses.
Out of a sense of ethics, I will never create an open source project that does not provide these guarantees to anyone contributing to it.
I still use MIT in some places like libs for ease of adoption but otherwise yes well said.
I disagree. Some things should be given to the whole world without conditions.
That's fine for work that doesn't have any real value.
If it becomes something lucrative, your free-to-take "without conditions" license just means that anyone with enough funding can hijack it and put their own conditions on it.
If you want the ongoing value of your contribution to the world to be available to the whole world "without conditions" then you need to protect against conditions being placed on it.
So the bech32 reference libraries are of no value to you. Got it.
I think you're more intelligent than that.
Can you recommend a good read on when an MIT licensed work has been made unavailable via corporate/state action?
No, because that isn't what I'm talking about. Here's a starting point for you: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/
What are some examples where a corp successful used the State to prevent competition?
Apple captured the value created by freebsd. It was a non-reciprocal one-way value transfer from freebsd open source contributors to apple.
Apple relicensed freebsd, making it illegal for freebsd (the open-source competition) to use apple's improvements and to leverage to State to enforce an ongoing one-way value transfer.
This is why Linux is GPL.
But at the same time Google uses the OS and contributes to the open source project, right?
And the cofounder worked at Apple for 12 years.
Apple has gotten caught even when they didn’t have the license and had to pay, but for every bad Apple there appears to be a net benefit from other contributors and a larger pie with private business investing in the space.
Each space and situation is different and might find a different license more appropriate.
For projects around bitcoin there’s a push for MIT so you can’t get rugged, and with nostr being “Public domain” grown has absolutely skyrocketed because of it prolly.
But devs need to decide where they want to see their code in the world as long as they still can.
Google is kind of better but not by much. When they first launched android they got a heap of open source developers to contribute for free under the belief it would always be fully open, then they started closing it off and changing the licenses when forks began popping up.
I'm pretty sure that two-way remixing GPL/MPL provides will win out. I understand why people like the no-questions-asked one-way value transfer model, and it gets investors on your side early, but I don't think it's sustainable long term.