What is the best alternative to GPLv2?
Here’s the Deal
Slant is powered by a community that helps you make informed decisions. Tell us what you’re passionate about to get your personalized feed and help others.
The license basically allows anyone to do whatever they want with the code as long as the original copyright and license notice is included along with the copy of the code. The code can be used for commercially, privately, it can be modified and it can be distributed. See More
The MIT/Expat license doesn't protect against open-source code being taken (without payment) and used in proprietary software. This is harmful to user freedom because it lets future development be taken out of the public domain and instead moved into non-free programs. In addition, it doesn't protect against software patents being used to attack user freedom. Unlike the Apache 2.0 and GPLv3 licenses, the MIT/Expat was written before software patents became a problem and doesn't include a patent release. See More
When using public code hosts such as GitHub and BitBucket it is suggested to use the filename UNLICENSE instead of the more traditional LICENSE or COPYRIGHT to store the license so it's easier to find unlicensed code. Additionally, the first line of the license is worded in a unique way specifically to allow searching for it with search engines. See More
Simple, negativates intellectual property, doesn`t falsely legitimate government coercive threats against other humans not mattering what they have done with their code. You can be sure that using it you avoid "my property, it's mine, ok? I just left it for you to use under my conditions, I own it, I wrote it in that file, it makes sense, my government also says so, now die or I'll kill you." See More