this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
127 points (95.0% liked)

Asklemmy

47626 readers
1015 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mholiv@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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:

  1. Exist
  2. Are accepted by tech corps for internal use.

If you don’t believe me look at your corps license inclusion policy.

[–] strizhechenko@lor.sh -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

@mholiv tried to look at MPL 2.0. Too long, didn't read, lol. Maybe later I'll look at it closely.

[–] mholiv@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

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