Basically, Expat-like licenses do not use the copyleft system:
When you distribute a project that’s copyleft licensed, you must give the exact same rights you were given (including the source code, license terms, etc). To resume this in 1 quote “the rights of one ends where the rights of the other begin”
It’s generally not great as most non-GPL licenses allow for keeping changes from the public. GPL requires changes being made to GPL source to be released under GPL. Depending on the details some non-GPL licenses allow for creating closed source forks without releasing anything to the public. This is what allows Android OEMs to keep AOSP forks with changes that never see the light of day. In this day and age, seeing what we see with corporations corporating, we probably want more GPL than less. Maybe Rust coreutils are worth the tradeoff, I don’t know.
Is that good or bad? What license are they using instead?
Edit: looks like they’re using MIT, but I can’t say I really understand the implications of that change
Basically, Expat-like licenses do not use the copyleft system: When you distribute a project that’s copyleft licensed, you must give the exact same rights you were given (including the source code, license terms, etc). To resume this in 1 quote “the rights of one ends where the rights of the other begin”
It’s generally not great as most non-GPL licenses allow for keeping changes from the public. GPL requires changes being made to GPL source to be released under GPL. Depending on the details some non-GPL licenses allow for creating closed source forks without releasing anything to the public. This is what allows Android OEMs to keep AOSP forks with changes that never see the light of day. In this day and age, seeing what we see with corporations corporating, we probably want more GPL than less. Maybe Rust coreutils are worth the tradeoff, I don’t know.
Thank you for the explainer I appreciate it :)