Doctrine switches from LGPL to MIT
whitewashing.de
Doctrine switches from LGPL to MIT
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: Doctrine switches from LGPL to MIT
#2> Maybe with enough experience you start to realize that it happens close to never that a proprietary fork of an open source project ends up outpacing the original project.
Apple's MacOS uses BSD code. Safari uses WebKit. In terms of audience outreach, I think both have obviously outpaced the original.
Re: Doctrine switches from LGPL to MIT
#3> Maybe with enough experience you start to realize that it happens close to never that a proprietary fork of an open source project ends up outpacing the original project. Apple's MacOS uses BSD code. Safari uses WebKit. In terms of audience outreach, I think both have obviously outpaced the original.
Except that Apple contributes back to both, so while Apple may have "outpaced" the originals, the originals also benefitted from that.
Re: Doctrine switches from LGPL to MIT
#4> Maybe with enough experience you start to realize that it happens close to never that a proprietary fork of an open source project ends up outpacing the original project. Apple's MacOS uses BSD code. Safari uses WebKit. In terms of audience outreach, I think both have obviously outpaced the original.
Except that Apple contributes back to both, so while Apple may have "outpaced" the originals, the originals also benefitted from that.
My understanding was that Apple's big code dump back to WebKit/KHTML was not useful for the KDE project. Apple is following the OSS spirit in a technical sense but is not succeeding in actually working with community contributions in a meaningful way. Feel free to refute me, I have no evidence, but this was my understanding.
Re: Doctrine switches from LGPL to MIT
#5> Maybe with enough experience you start to realize that it happens close to never that a proprietary fork of an open source project ends up outpacing the original project. Apple's MacOS uses BSD code. Safari uses WebKit. In terms of audience outreach, I think both have obviously outpaced the original.
WebKit is licensed under the LGPL. Apple can't close its source.
Re: Doctrine switches from LGPL to MIT
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that Apple contributes back to both, so while Apple may have "outpaced" the originals, the originals also benefitted from that.
My understanding was that Apple's big code dump back to WebKit/KHTML was not useful for the KDE project. Apple is following the OSS spirit in a technical sense but is not succeeding in actually working with community contributions in a meaningful way. Feel free to refute me, I have no evidence, but this was my understanding.
That was the case for the first two releases. After that the KHTML guys complained vocally (it made Slashdot) and Apple started to release diffs, then completely opened the dev process.
Re: Doctrine switches from LGPL to MIT
#7Since everyone loves tortured analogies, MIT/BSD is like handing out free pencil sharpeners. "Enjoy! Just don't misrepresent where you got it from." GPL is like handing out free pencil sharpeners but requiring that everyone share everything they write using any pencil that was sharpened with it.
Re: Doctrine switches from LGPL to MIT
#8Since everyone loves tortured analogies, MIT/BSD is like handing out free pencil sharpeners. "Enjoy! Just don't misrepresent where you got it from." GPL is like handing out free pencil sharpeners but requiring that everyone share everything they write using any pencil that was sharpened with it.
The GPL doesn't restrict the products of tools.
I think a GPL-like extension of a pencil sharpener would be the following. You develop a new pencil sharpener that copies 90% of the original design but includes a sharper blade that makes nicer pencil tips; when you release that product, you must show everyone how your pencil sharpener is designed and definitely must not prevent anyone from seeing how the original (that you started with) was designed.
Re: Doctrine switches from LGPL to MIT
#9Since everyone loves tortured analogies, MIT/BSD is like handing out free pencil sharpeners. "Enjoy! Just don't misrepresent where you got it from." GPL is like handing out free pencil sharpeners but requiring that everyone share everything they write using any pencil that was sharpened with it.
I don't think that's a very good analogy. It's more like sharing back everything you did to enhance the free pencil sharpener, so the whole project evolves even faster with everyone's enhancements.
I think both GPL and MIT have their place in the open source world. If you want to build something long-term and you want everyone to contribute, then use GPL. If you just care about jumpstarting a solution to a problem, and if you're satisfied if they only use your basic solution at the very least, then use MIT.
Re: Doctrine switches from LGPL to MIT
#10It is a pity that the article does not explain why the change. I assume that the MIT license is more permissive than an LGPL license but since LGPL allows use in closed source projects what else does MIT brings to the table?