“ Second, some organizations unfortunately are unwilling to use software licensed under any variant of the GPL. Since we want to provide a clear license and to promote the use of Racket everywhere, a new, more-permissive license is the right choice for Racket.”
In my opinion, this is the heart of why GPL is valuable. While I can’t fault racket for buckling under pressure, especially considering some of the other aspects of licensing challenges, if businesses shouldn’t use GPL I think it stands to reason that individuals shouldn’t use MIT. After all the business is just seeking their own interest, keeping code they run on your machine secret, and we should seek to know what code is run on our machines, as is the original intent of the GPL. The fact that they fear it is good enough sign that it works, and that we should use it as much as reasonably possible.
Two people declined to re-license their contributions to Racket
Sure, they can do what they want, but I’ve always wondered about the reasons. It’s usually not the core team or people with a 2 digit percentage of code, but it sounds like “doesn’t matter, we can rewrite that”.
I guess that’s the most obvious reason, but depending on the amount of code it’s kind of a hollow statement I guess. Just going from personal experience, maybe my preferences aren’t strong enough and I’d be happier if the project continues to function with my contributions than without…
“ Second, some organizations unfortunately are unwilling to use software licensed under any variant of the GPL. Since we want to provide a clear license and to promote the use of Racket everywhere, a new, more-permissive license is the right choice for Racket.”
In my opinion, this is the heart of why GPL is valuable. While I can’t fault racket for buckling under pressure, especially considering some of the other aspects of licensing challenges, if businesses shouldn’t use GPL I think it stands to reason that individuals shouldn’t use MIT. After all the business is just seeking their own interest, keeping code they run on your machine secret, and we should seek to know what code is run on our machines, as is the original intent of the GPL. The fact that they fear it is good enough sign that it works, and that we should use it as much as reasonably possible.
Nicely put! This shall forever be my motto (or at least until the death of copyright).
Sure, they can do what they want, but I’ve always wondered about the reasons. It’s usually not the core team or people with a 2 digit percentage of code, but it sounds like “doesn’t matter, we can rewrite that”.
Maybe they feel strongly that Racket should continue to be licensed under the previous license?
I guess that’s the most obvious reason, but depending on the amount of code it’s kind of a hollow statement I guess. Just going from personal experience, maybe my preferences aren’t strong enough and I’d be happier if the project continues to function with my contributions than without…