MIT does not prevent from contributing back. Also GPL does not ensure it is contributing back. Besides thiefs and Ai companies, anyone can use GPL privately, modify the code and do whatever they want without contributing back, if not published openly.

Can you name me MIT licensed projects where it is a problem like you describe?

I rather recommend torrents and download files named like “Rihanna.mp3.exe”. This is to my knowledge the most secure source.

these were dirt cheap on the darkweb circa 2014 and i hope that they still are

I don’t know how, but I’m sure Ai found a way to increase those prices too. lowkey joking here, but I’m actually scared by the idea this could be true. Edit: I mean so that Ai tools can access those videos as cheap as possible.

Yes, but does anyone actually use LGPL still? Anyway that is a different license and not really GPL anymore, as it does not force anything. I mean if the project is GPL licensed already, then you can’t turn it into LPGL, because that is no longer compatible. So the issue for programs and games being GPL remains. If they were LGPL from the start, yes, that probably would solve it.

One example is that GPL games cannot be published in Steam, with using Steams proprietary tools and features.

And in general I am not actually against for any company to use MIT licensed products without open sourcing their own proprietary tools. It would be nice if they open sourced it, but I am against in forcing companies to do so. Now I understand the risks involved here, but its not like MIT license is the devil, just like GPL can be problematic in some cases, MIT can too.

Thanks for providing a source. I will watch it at later time and put it on Watch Later list. Until then I can’t really say anything about it, just wanted to thank you.

I can’t speak for medical field… but a more serious topic, in example videogames. :D

I think sometimes GPL can be in the way, so it is a tradeoff. In example if you use proprietary Steam features in your game, then you cannot build the game with GPL libraries and code, because that is not compatible with proprietary code. For some that is exactly what the GPL is set to do, for others its hindering games and other software to be released on Steam with Steam features. That means, its impossible to sell GPL software on Steam, if you want to use any of those features (I think in example Achievements and online save files in example). MIT would solve this issue.

I don’t think Ai companies care about the license at all, or cannot be checked after the training. So that is not really an argument to me.

Why does it matter?

Why not?

This is not about defending corporations. It doesn’t matter who does that, I don’t think writing new tools with a different license is bad. My opinion has nothing to do about who does that, if communities, or corporations. I think having tools in a different language than C, especially something like Rust, is a good thing. Anyone who writes Rust code can read, adapt and make changes to it.

And for licensing, GPL can be problematic in some cases that is not compatible with every license. Therefore having an alternative in MIT license is a good thing. Even if it ends up being in a proprietary program, its still better than not able to use the code. The old GPL code is still maintained independently.

It’s not even Ubuntu doing the new implementation. And no, having a new project that is compatible to an existing one does not make it a license laundering. The word “license laundering” doesn’t even make sense.

I don’t think so.

I completely ignored SimCity 4, because its from EA and I thought they would require an EA account or launcher, and also depend on internet connection to play. Does it need anything like that or can this game be played by just downloading from Steam and play even offline?

I don’t understand why Canonical is replacing the existing GNU tools. Unlike many others, I don’t think its “taking over GPL projects” or “license laundering” and I am also not against MIT license. My question is, why Canonical is doing this.

This is not a takeover of GPL project, this is a new project that is compatible to existing tools with GPL license. The old GPL projects are untouched and not controlled by Canonical.

How is this license laundering? These are complete new implementations and the original projects are not touched.

They announced the end. Everyone is back at playing Playstation as if nothing happened. Well off course not everyone, but the majority.

even hardware, everything

Agreed a bit, not fully, but if someone is against it, then there is already a bias. For someone who is not involved and not against it, just want to compare them, I argue that person might not know and understand it completely. So a bias is natural. So taking that as an argument to discount the credibility, I am not entirely on board. However if someone is so much biased, that it looses all judgement of positive and negatives, and only provides one side of the story, then I am 100% on your side of opinion.