You must log in or # to comment.
A small but notable percentage of low income, low education people are just fuckwits who make terrible decisions. They had access to opportunities, they could have overcome their circumstances with just a little effort but smoking cones and stealing shit was less effort so they did that and these people are a comparable drain on society as the uber rich.
Honestly, same for the well-off too. It’s probably the same exact people that become failkids.
But that’s just inconsistent with the state of of current scientific knowledge.
Being poor makes you less likely to make a long term decision, not the other way around. In societies where income varies from season to season, you literally have less smokers when the money situation is good and more when the situation is bad. Long story short fighting for survival is extremely cognitively tasking. Thinking and planing is, literally, harder if you burned those resources on “what to put on the table… today”, problems.
OP is saying that of the people who are poor and uneducated, there is a small percentage that are fuckwits. Your description could be true for 95% of such people and it still wouldn’t be inconsistent with OP’s comment.
So… OP’s “hot” take is “loosers exist”?
Not just that they exist but that they are a fucking huge drain on society.
As much as Billionaires are a cancer and the world would be better without them, Jeff Bezos never smashed the window on my car to steal my speakers, he doesnt come out vandalising public transport or parks and he isnt the reason my wife doesnt feel safe walking around at night. Billionaires are the reason we dont get more nice things, these assholes are the reasons we cant keep the ones we have.
They also make any sort of socialistic change harder, because any time you try to help the “underprivileged” anyone who wants to oppose it can hold up one of these wastes of oxygen and use them as the spokesperson.
Jeff Bezos never smashed the window on my car to steal my speakers,
True.
he doesnt come out vandalising public transport or parks and he isnt the reason my wife doesnt feel safe walking around at night.
If we could even comprehend the scale of his unpaid taxes, or their impact on our parks, we might discuss this at length…
Yes, thats what the very next sentence of my post was getting it.
It’s “losers”, but yes. I’d phrase it as “not every poor and uneducated person deserves sympathy; it’s not necessarily victim-blaming to refuse to accommodate such a person.”
That’s a quality summary.
Thank the both of you for summing up my point better than I did.
Older men having sex with sexually mature teen girls is fine, under reasonable circumstances. The world seems to think this is always coercive or predatory or harmful, but there is no reason any of these things are universally true.
The age of consent in almost all nations is around 18. This stands to reason, since society expects people of this age to be able to make reasonable decisions. Depending on the country, people around this age are given agency to emancipate themselves from their families, take on hundreds of thousands of dollars of student debt, join the military and possibly die for their country, drive an automobile, buy alcohol or tobacco, etc. If we believe someone is mature enough to do these things, then we should certainly give them the lawful right to have sex with whomever they like.
Meanwhile, women often find maturity, status, or wealth to be attractive qualities in men, and men find youthfulness to be an attractive quality in a woman. Of course, this differs person to person - everyone had different sexual preferences. But there are general trends, and based on these trends, the pairing of younger women and older men is an obvious one.
The typical response to this is that “the only reason a man would want to date a woman that young is so he can have someone to control and manipulate” - which is crazy. The primary reason men want to date younger women is because they are hot. However, because there is a social stigma against age gap relationships, most men are put off of their interest to pursue younger women. So what you end up with is only dirtbags pursuing younger women - the men who do not care about negative social stigmas.
However, if you are a man who is interested in dating younger women, this whole situation works to your favor - if you are willing to tolerate the social stigma, you end up with much less competition for the women you find most attractive.
Suicide is perfectly acceptable and should be a right, we should all have the choice of when we want to go. Some pain, physical or emotional is too much, or loss can be too great.
I don’t care if I could or can get better, I should be able to down some hemlock and leave.
OMG IM SO SHOCKED A BUNCH OF SUPER POPULAR OPINIONS ON LEMMY!!
It’s anything about which people are in denial, be it the need for capitalism, the western role in Ukrain, the environmental impact of a single consumer, the validity of political objectives of the opposition, the impact of immigration, …
My ultimate opinion is that we need to step back and notice that the denial is built on purpose and that the goal can’t be to push for the victory of the own team. There needs to be understanding of the underlying problems that includes the view of the other teams to change the mechanisms that create them.
If we can’t do that then all the manipulation is already the best strategy to force humanity into progress.
It’s insane how many removed call lots of the ideas here “Eugenics”. Eugenics is about producing the best GENES possible, while a lot of the replies here say that bad parents should not be allowed to make kids. Nobody talked about stopping people who aren’t so “perfect” (biologically-wise) to make kids. Just not have more kids suffering by growing in abusive and broken households or been poor and have it very hard in life.
People are Lemmy are not much smarter that those on Reddit, it seems…
If you use queerphobia against others as a way to keep yourself in the closet, then you deserve to get outed.
Do you think that people who act queerphobic for reasons other than hiding their true identity also deserve to be outed?
I think they mean outed as queer, not outed as queerphobic. Like doing queerphobic shit and someone knows you’re queer and in denial or using it to try to lock your closet door, they think those people should be outed as such.
If someone is queerphobic but straight, what are you outing them as?
At least that’s how I understood the comment.
That it’s best so sort comments from lowest scores to highest to get the actual unpopular opinions.
People are default evil.
No idea. I can’t sort by up down votes.
If that’s the standard, then mine is probably
I consider tankies to be people that are incapable or unwilling to admit that China or whoever else massacred their people.
from the .ml/c/memes community. It also got me a temporary ban for not being “civil and nice.”
You are probably cruel and violent to vulnerable individuals more than three times a day.
I’m frustrated more people are complacent with the state of the world, including myself.
If you eat factory meat, you’re doing something morally wrong that can’t be justified.
And the vast majority of people who get defensive about that, deep down know what they are doing is morally dubious at best, but they can’t/won’t admit it, so they lash out at vegans/vegetarians instead.
Not just factory meat. If you are paying for another fellow creature to be tortured and murdered you are acting in an unjustifiable manner.
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best.
Factory farming, extensive farming, they’re all bad for the soil, bad for native wildlife, bad for native plants. The societal impacts of factory farming are also not small. In the end, the moral lines people draw are mostly at different places, neither is undoubtedly better than the other.
As it currently stands, the morally correct option for food production would probably be for a large amount of the population to starve. That, of course, is also not entirely morally correct.
Disclaimer: I am personally omnivorous. I have a son and many other relatives and friends who are or were vegetarians or vegans. I love a lot of veggie food and used to frequent vegan restaurants, so I have absolutely zero qualms with it.
I have personally tried to give up meat twice, once for 6 months and once for a year. On both cases my health suffered massively for it, and I went back to eating meat. I had a cousin who was, for many years, a hardcore vegetarian. She was also of the opinion that eating meat was wrong. A few years ago she reintroduced fish in her diet to overcome health issues after fighting them for years. Most symptoms subsided in a handful of months. I believe she now also eats beef, although infrequently and in small quantities.
I’m sorry to be that guy but reality is more complex than whatever moral line any one of us would like to draw. You’re not wrong but it would behoove you to acquire some nuance on your thoughts.
Large amounts of the population starving is not the morally correct option. Eating meat is many times more inefficient for resources used than eating plants. The infrastructure needed to sustainably mass farm vegetables for the whole world would be far less resource intensive than our current omnivorous factory farming system.
Your personal anecdote, assuming it’s true is completely included in my original critique. I specified factory farmed meat as the problem. I am fine with sustainable hunting if that’s your only option, because it requires genuine effort by the hunter, and it provides a generally less painful death for the animal vs what they would experience out in nature from any other predator. Also, there are some people who have medical situations where eating zero meat does cause them some issues. That being said, it’s a very small percentage of the population, and I suspect many folks (not necessarily you) are lying or mistaken that their health suffered when they gave up meat. Most of the time, it’s because they simply weren’t eating a balanced diet.
Eating less meat is better than eating more meat. Something is better than nothing, it’s good to cut down on meat consumption, even if you aren’t cutting it out completely.
Nothing we do is perfect, even the most hardcore vegan has slapped a mosquito or patronized a business that uses fossil fuels, etc. But it’s about trying to be better. Trying to equate the harms of the meat industry to harms that vegetarians/vegans cause is like trying to equate Ted Bundy with a kid who cheated on their math homework. Sure both did something bad, but one of those bad things is far more severe.
And as my personal anecdote: I am not vegan, I’m vegetarian. I get attacked by more hardcore vegans for eating honey and eggs. I have cut down my consumption of both, I drink almost exclusively non-dairy milk, and I bike and use public transport when I am able. But I’m not perfect, not possible to be.
The true unpopular opinion?
Amazing how many plants rights advocates pop up every time someone mentions the cruelty and violence being endured by farm animals. And no other time.
It’s the only time where it’s relevant to the conversation, no? Why would you bring it up anywhere else?
As it currently stands, the morally correct option for food production would probably be for a large amount of the population to starve. That, of course, is also not entirely morally correct.
Considering almost 1.5 billion adults in the world are overweight it wouldn’t be so bad to let some people starve.
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best. Factory farming, extensive farming, they’re all bad for the soil, bad for native wildlife, bad for native plants. The societal impacts of factory farming are also not small. In the end, the moral lines people draw are mostly at different places, neither is undoubtedly better than the other.
Animals needs to eat and drink too, the meat industry has the highest tool on the farming industry.
I have personally tried to give up meat twice, once for 6 months and once for a year. On both cases my health suffered massively for it, and I went back to eating meat. I had a cousin who was, for many years, a hardcore vegetarian. She was also of the opinion that eating meat was wrong. A few years ago she reintroduced fish in her diet to overcome health issues after fighting them for years. Most symptoms subsided in a handful of months. I believe she now also eats beef, although infrequently and in small quantities. I’m sorry to be that guy but reality is more complex than whatever moral line any one of us would like to draw. You’re not wrong but it would behoove you to acquire some nuance on your thoughts.
It sound like your diet was off, if you don’t eat animal products you need valid alternatives to complete and balance your diet. In cultures shaped around animal products it may not be automatic or easy to find alternatives. Our ancestors diet for example had less meat and more lentils, in countries were they consume less meat you are most likely to find popular dish with other proteins sources.
Considering almost 1.5 billion adults in the world are overweight it wouldn’t be so bad to let some people starve.
You are fucked in the head.
There are a lot of calories lost when eating meat, because the animals burn calories by staying alive. So eating meat is like eating 15x times more calories from veggies. So everything bad for the environment about vegetarian consumption is true for meat too but in worse.
And perfect is the enemy of good. Veggies aren’t perfect, but they’re far better than meat for the environment.
Some of those are useless calories, we can’t eat grass and on some lands where only grass grows so cows are a way of using that grass, but that’s not the majority.
most of what animals are fed are parts of plants people can’t or won’t eat, or grazed grass. in that way, we are conserving resources.
That’s exactly what I wrote
no, you said those calories are wasted.
Read more than the first sentence please
“Some of those are useless calories, we can’t eat grass and on some lands where only grass grows so cows are a way of using that grass, but that’s not the majority.”
most people don’t want to eat soy cake, or crop seconds, or spoilage. feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources, not a waste.
This is not true. The vast majority of farmed animals come from high intensity operations and the vast bulk of the food they eat is grown agriculturally. This is one of those happy little lies people repeat to themselves without verifying because it provides them with a shred of moral license. They don’t really care whether it’s true or not and finding out it is false won’t change their behaviour, it’s a totally facile argument.
the vast bulk of the food they eat is grown agriculturally.
sure, but I can’t eat cornstalks and I don’t want to eat soy cake, so feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources.
Where are you getting your information?
The majority of all the plants that humans grow are fed to livestock. That’s just the fact of the matter. It’s not conserving anything, rather it’s incredibly wasteful. Human food crops could have been grown instead, on a fraction of the land.
And again, you don’t really give a shit. It wouldn’t change your behaviour to discover you are mistaken, it’s a disingenuous argument. It’s sophistry.
Human food crops could have been grown instead, on a fraction of the land.
human food crops are grown. soy is a great example. about 80% of soy is pressed for oil, and the byproduct is fed to livestock.
The majority of all the plants that humans grow are fed to livestock.
this is a lie
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best.
Care to elaborate? Like are you saying that there is something inherently wrong about veganism or are you saying that vegans are not perfect people and also commit bad acts?
If it’s the first, you need some serious evidence and explanations since scientifically it is established that veganism is healthier, better for the environment, produces more calories per land, water and energy usage, and of course, the animals get to live free of torture.
If it’s the second option, well yeah, no one is perfect. We should all do our best to improve, I wasn’t born a vegan but once I understood what I was doing I stopped it, and it was hard and I had some fallbacks, but eventually I got used to it and had no issues. This is not just about veganism, there are many things in my life that at somepoint I came to understand that they were wrong, and I changed myself to be better. People can do both good and bad things, but if they are aware of the bad stuff and choose to ignore it, that’s when they become bad people.
A simple example from my past is that when I was younger (kid to teen) I thought “nig&er” was just a word for a black person, it was only when a black person explained it to me that I understood the historical and cultural significance of it. Does the fact that I said nig&er made me a bad person? I don’t think so, but if I ignored what I had learned and continued? Yeah, I think that would have been bad.
There’s something to be said about the ease of access and personal energy needed to deal with changing a diet that has been inherited by birth where the alternative is possibly much more expensive. I don’t blame individuals who eat cheap meat out of necessity just as I don’t blame people for not recycling since the responsibility of the exploitation and destruction of our planet lies entirely with the people who run the machine, not those who are forced under threat of violence to exist inside it.
Fair, however a balanced vegetarian diet is as cheap or cheaper than a cheap meat centric diet, and certainly healthier.
A can of beans is about a dollar, less depending on where you shop. Potatoes are a few dollars a bag, and for most people, a bag of large russets would last them several days if not a week. Same for leafy greens, frozen fruit and veggies, bags of rice, etc.
I agree that there can be other factors, but impoverished communities around the world for centuries have lived on staple foods like those.
I think some personal responsibility is necessary still. Sure the megacorps are the ones doing the most harm and push people to be more consumerist, but that doesn’t absolve people of all their personal autonomy, otherwise you justify all kinds of “just following orders” arguments.
We ought to still resist the corpos and try to live our lives in ways that are better for the world as a whole. Sure, me recycling cans and trying to buy local isn’t going to save the planet, but that doesn’t mean I should just throw litter around in the street and buy everything from Amazon and Walmart.
otherwise you justify all kinds of “just following orders” arguments.
I’m not sure I’d equate having your hand forced with following orders blindly. It’s nearly impossible to change individuals’ behaviors unless it’s due to systemic forces (minus the few who just want to be correct as long as it is visible). But if you’re more focused on individuals and their “responsibility” even though they had no input on the creation of this system, I’d only assume that you’re fine with this system and would rather shout at the brick wall of “individual responsibility”, then get frustrated when people end up hating vegetarians and vegans. I’m like 90% vegetarian nowadays because I can’t really afford meat anyways as well as it giving me headaches and foul moods, but I don’t think you’re being realistic in what you’re asking. Would the world be better with no factory farming? Absolutely yes. But we’re in this situation not because of people’s choices. We’re in this situation because the choice has been made for a lot of us. Some people are a single paycheck away from homelessness, so they likely don’t have the resources to learn how to cook, then ruin a bunch of food in the learning process, only to overspend, and be threatened with getting kicked out all for your own comfort. Go fight the people making this the reality we’re living in.
this just isn’t true.
Gaslighting
Gaslighting
That’s willful self-delusion.
Digital Marketing doesn’t work. Digital Bubble is here and it will burst hard ending the “free internet”. The more you work in marketing, the less you are inclined to agree… or even listen…
This will not be preaty.
To be clear, are you talking about all digital marketing or just paid advertising? I’ve seen some research that shows ads don’t work at all but that long-term content marketing does.
I’m taking mostly about CPC, yes.
But you put all this long-term content marketing on sites that have massive traffic… which they have bexouse they are free. And they are free becouse they are financed by CPC ads. Would they be worth it behind the paywall reaching 1/1000th of the audience? Burst of the PPC bubble will take town a lot of placements with it.
Also, also I would be very cautious about studies proving the long-term efficiency of contend advertising, since those studies are inherently hard to design. Often.wjat you are measuring is basicly brand recognition, which grow over time by the virtue of running your business.
As for now there is somewhat meaningful body of evidence that advertising works well in early stagas. Your potential clients exist somewhere, and you need to inform them that you exists. Money well spent.
But once you cross that threshold… all sugest that Coca-Cola and oreo are loosing money on every dolar spent on advertising… we knew it before, and Digital Marketing was promosed to be the solution thanks to advenced tracking and analytic. It’s not. It’s just as ineffective, and it’s getting worse every year.
The type of people that are on Lemmy will generally agree with this, but let me just say as somebody with a wife and plenty of friends that are girls that digital marketing very much works, very much is effective, and you’re probably just not the target market. This, of course, is independent of your Digital Bubble remark, which I generally agree with. Also, not in marketing as a disclaimer.
MIT and BSD software licenses might as well be renamed to “I love big daddy companies and trust them 100% uwu”
There is no reason no to choose GOL/AGPL/MPL 2.0 if you are writing open source code.
MIT and BSD just let companies es enrich themselves at societies expense.
@mholiv@lemmy.world It’s common misconception that copyleft licences stop rich companies stealing open source.
I mean you can’t steal open source code if you tried. The code is too respectful of your freedoms. I don’t think anyone is arguing against you here.
@mholiv@lemmy.world So there’s no reason not to use non-copyleft licences like BSD or MIT.
If “theft” is your only concern yes. It’s a common misconception that copyleft licenses stops rich companies from stealing. It does not.
I am more concerned about societal enrichment vs corporate enrichment.
If you release some code under MIT that a company finds useful, they could take it, improve it a bit, and resell it back to the community. This enriches the company at the expense of the community. Without the original code the company could have never taken it as a basis to sell and the community that wrote the code gets nothing.
If you release that same code as AGPL the company can take it, improve it and sell it to the community. BUT the difference is that the community now benefits from those improvements too. Maybe more improvements happen. Maybe a second company takes those improvements and sells them too. The community would have all the improvements and would benefit from greater competition.
With copy left licenses. The community is enriched and companies are enriched.
With MIT style licenses. Companies are enriched at the expense of the community.
@mholiv@lemmy.world It looks you believe that magic letters G, P and L make company release their improvements to the public. Actually they do the same with MIT and GPL code: include it into closed source products and that is. Because there’s no way for you to check if there was GPL in closed source program.
But the GPL style licences bring licence compatibility issues while MIT style do not. (And that’s why Linux cannot include ZFS driver despite it’s being “GPL style” licenced)
Ask Cisco how they feel about it. There is a precedence of companies using copy left licensed software and the community benefiting from it.
If companies are just going to be blatantly criminal and violate software licenses they were going to do that anyways. I’m not sure how much experience you have working in or with mega corps but the ones I have worked with in the past HATE the idea of opening themselves up to being so blatantly liable.
When I worked in big tech we had a license scanner that checked the libraries we were using. Anything strongly copyleft would be flagged and we would be contacted by legal.
You might have experienced working with companies that act otherwise. I encourage you to call them out, maybe work with the FSF to get another Cisco style ruling.
Funny you mention ZFS though. It’s not the GPL that was the issue. It is CDDL that’s incompatible. GPL is generally comparable with foss licenses. MIT, MPL, Apache, BSD all are comparable. It’s just CDDL that’s incompatible with copyleft in general.
If you think the community will benefit more from MIT licensed software than copyleft I think you need to look harder at the modern corporate world. Corporations are not altruistic.
This being said I’m not sure there is much more to be said here. You’ve gone to saying I believe in magic and that there are corporate GPL conspiracies. I just don’t see the proof and I think there is not much more to be gained by such talk.
@mholiv@lemmy.world Going criminal is not a goal in itself. I think you know, corporations exist for profit. If violating a licence gains profit they’ll do it. You know companies doing open source? I know too. Why do they do it? Because of GPL? No, they do because they profit from it. (And they like how copyleft licences restrict others from benefiting).
You see problem with CDDL? Problem would be any other copyleft licence. No copyleft licence is compatible with GPL (except they include special exception), neither CDDL, nor GFDL (despite GNU in its name), nor any other. Funny you mention MIT, MPL, Apache and BSD in this list, because they’re all permissive that are compatible to both GPL and CDDL. It is not CDDL, but copyleft making these licences incompatible. I mentioned CDDL specifically because it is an iconic example how copyleft (allows a company to) hurt open source.
You’re speaking about “conspiracies”, and ask me for proofs. But what proofs do you need? That companies violate licences? There are known cases of open source licence litigations. Actually problem is deeper, not that companies violate licences, but that there’s no effective way to enforce such licences (without totalitarism).
I managed and maintained a known open-source project. GPL license.
4 guys in SKorea submitted patches back as required, which their company claimed was corporate espionage – because they intended to violate the license?
Someone from the FSF took their case, but was unsuccessful. 4 guys went to prison because of them adhering to my license. Prison!
I’ve done BSD ever since. I can’t prevent companies from being right sociopaths, but I can keep well-meaning and honest people out of prison.
Wait, so because a few execs violated the GPL and threw their employees under the bus, we should abandon copyleft entirely? That’s like ditching locks just because burglars exist. Companies that want to exploit software will do so, BSD or not. The GPL didn’t land those four guys in prison; their higher-ups did. Giving up and saying “ok big corp I’ll just do what you want“ just makes it even easier for corporations to profit at societies expense.
we should abandon copyleft entirely?
You do what you need to do.
That really sucks, but it does seem like just giving this company the win. I imagine it didn’t break those guys out of jail either. Regardless, do you have an article or something on this subject? I’ve never heard of such a case but I’m interested!
Can’t do it without doxxing myself.
I don’t need validation of the facts. I’m just saying why I cannot go with an encumbered license for any new stuff. I can’t put others in that kind of risk.
Of course it’s your right to choose, but I’m not convinced that’s a good enough reason. The well-meaning and honest people can make their own judgements about their employer and decide whether or not to include GPL code. Even if you change your license there will still be GPL code out there and corporations don’t need any more handouts.
Of course there are reasons. Maybe you are more concerned with your innovated algorithm being taken up for the benefit of humanity than you are about your ego project getting lots of pull requests.
Pull requests have nothing to do with any of this. Also algorithms can’t be copyrighted nor patterned in the first place so it would not matter.
You could implant an algorithm in a proprietary code base and some gal could reverse engineer it and publish it as GPL or MIT or whatever and all would be a-ok.
Pull requests have nothing to do with any of this.
Disagree. That’s exactly the thing you want to receive from these corporations.
So under GPL, they can use my algorithm, but not my code. So they run it through ChatGTP. What has been gained??
In terms of algorithms, nothing. But you were the one who mentioned algorithms. I am speaking of code in general. I do want for persons to contribute back to the community if they use community sourced code. I don’t think we can trust corporations to be altruistic.
This all being said in your earlier message you were implying it’s all about ego. I was just saying it is not about ego.
For me it’s all about community resources and societal enrichment.
What’s the main difference between those licenses?
Sure. Very briefly. These are all open source licenses which (roughly) means the source is freely viewable and changeable. But the specific differences are:
-
MIT/BSD - Anyone can take the code and do whatever they want, if they start with your code, improve it then make it proprietary there is nothing you can do.
-
GPL - If someone makes changes to your code and improves it they have to make it available for use by the community too IF and only if they distribute the binary.
-
AGPL - Like GPL except that even if they are running the code on their server and not sharing it they still have to give back improvements.
-
MPL 2.0 - Like GPL but limited to specific files. This is useful for things like statically linked code. I don’t often recommend this but it can be needed for static only code bases like rust. Proprietary software can link with this and not be covered by the copyleft share alike stuff.
-
LGPL - Like the GPL but for dynamically linked libraries. Proprietary software can link with this and not be covered by the copyleft share alike stuff.
-
SSPL - Like AGPL but technically even more intense. If you use SSPL you must open source all the tooling you use to manage that hosted SSPL license. Any tools to make sure the SSPL software is running well or to set it up must also be open sourced.
The OSI technically does not say the SSPL is “open source” but given that they recently admitted that they regret defining the AGPL as open source I think the OSI might be showing a bit of corporate bias.
Thank you. At glance it seems like the difference between CC0 and CC-SA in copyright with some additiona rules about what exactly count as “publishing” stuf. That was very helpful.
CC0 vs CC-SA is actually a really good (rough) analogy.
-
@mholiv yes. Literally the reason why I use MIT licenses in my software. It’s possible for real people (same as me) doing real work to use my software legally and I don’t care if they hide their patches from me. I don’t really care about them at all - I just supply software as it is.
Then why not LGPL or MPL 2.0? They could use your code as is too. I’ve worked in major tech companies and they are ok with these. They just don’t like GPL for obvious reasons.
Obviously too is that you have the right to choose how to license your code, but I don’t think it makes sense to use MIT when LGPL and MPL 2.0:
- Exist
- Are accepted by tech corps for internal use.
If you don’t believe me look at your corps license inclusion policy.
@mholiv tried to look at MPL 2.0. Too long, didn’t read, lol. Maybe later I’ll look at it closely.
I will say shortness is a major advantage of the MIT license. Easy to understand.
For the MPL 2.0 here is a good short reference.
https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/mozilla-public-license-2-0-mpl-2
Preach!
That is a quite popular opinion judging by the votes. I think they function quite differently, and are useful for different things, which might be more unpopular.
BSD and MIT are more like “public domain” or “creative commons” licenses. Some people genuinely just don’t care and want literally anyone to use their work.
Libraries, languages, APIs, OS’s, etc… Work well because they have mass adoption. They have mass adoption (often) because people get the freedom to use them during their paid time. Companies are exploitative and evil, but often their dev and engineer employees aren’t.
Copy left licenses (GPL, AGPL, CERN-OHL-S to not forget about open source hardware) really shine for end products like hardware, applications, hosted software, games, etc… Where you want to preserve a “unique” end product against theft, exploitation, and commercialization, and really care about having not everyone be able to do whatever they want.
