GPLv2 vs MIT License
When comparing GPLv2 vs MIT License, the Slant community recommends MIT License for most people. In the question“What are the best open-source licenses?” MIT License is ranked 1st while GPLv2 is ranked 7th. The most important reason people chose MIT License is:
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.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Ensures that derivitave works are also protected by copyleft
Ensures that the software and its derivatives remain licensed under the same license to keep the software free and open source.
Pro Guarantees that all changes are given back
Pro Ensures that the software does not become proprietary
Pro Prevents lock-in
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.
Pro Short and simple
The MIT license is one of the shortest licenses of all the major recognized open source licenses. The full text is just 3 paragraphs long.
Pro Explicitly allows sublicensing
The license specifically mentions that the code can be used in other software that might have a less permissive license.
Pro Protects the author
The author of the software avoids any risk for how the software may be used by others.
Cons
Con Cannot be linked with other licenses
Software licensed under the GNU GPLv2 is incompatible with all other licenses, with the exception of GPLv3 in most cases. This means that code from a GPLv2 program cannot be combined with code under another license in the same program.
Con Long and complicated
The license is very long and complicated, making it hard to read and comprehend. However, there is a simplified version available here.
Con Does not protect long-term user freedom
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.
Con Does not prevent others from taking and selling your software
The MIT license is permissive enough that anyone can take your code, rebrand it and sell it.
Con Ambiguous name
The MIT License is sometimes known as the Expat License or the X11 License because it has been used with different names in different places.