The royalty free license tries to get as close to MIT as we can while limiting the use on embedded…
I think I understand that perspective. But please also understand the other perspective: how a user has the right to see it, when they are not connected to the company.
If you are such a user, then you need open-source software for your daily life. And you use it. At the same time, you see:
IntelliJ Idea taking its MIT-licensed Rust plugin and deciding that it’ll be more profitable for them to close-source it, so you won’t have it anymore. And of course nobody forked the plugin. The idea is clear, the company wants you to use Rust Rover.
Apple’s OS, being historically based on 4.4BSD-Lite2 and FreeBSD, and being the second-highest valued company in the world (!), is happily living with all and any of that MIT-licensed code, while BSD itself is stagnating. It’s not Apple’s fault of course, Apple is not a bad actor here. It’s just not very smart or future-proof to spend a lot of time binding yourself to a system that can easily turn into stagnation.
On the other hand, GPL-licensed projects protect themselves very well. When things don’t go well, you see successful foks (such as Forjeo, LibreOffice, MariaDB). When things go well, you just see it thriving (such as Linux, most userland software).
We try to make all of the terms as clear as possible. We rewrote the Slint licensing page several times,…
To answer this and to conclude, for me personally, it’s not about how to write something. It’s about what is written. The fact that Slint aims to be good for a for-profit company, does not and will never nullify that MIT contributions are re-licensed as GPL or proprietary. It will come up, and it’s fair when it does… as I see it, at least.
Sorry for the late reply.
I think I understand that perspective. But please also understand the other perspective: how a user has the right to see it, when they are not connected to the company.
If you are such a user, then you need open-source software for your daily life. And you use it. At the same time, you see:
IntelliJ Idea taking its MIT-licensed Rust plugin and deciding that it’ll be more profitable for them to close-source it, so you won’t have it anymore. And of course nobody forked the plugin. The idea is clear, the company wants you to use Rust Rover.
Apple’s OS, being historically based on 4.4BSD-Lite2 and FreeBSD, and being the second-highest valued company in the world (!), is happily living with all and any of that MIT-licensed code, while BSD itself is stagnating. It’s not Apple’s fault of course, Apple is not a bad actor here. It’s just not very smart or future-proof to spend a lot of time binding yourself to a system that can easily turn into stagnation.
On the other hand, GPL-licensed projects protect themselves very well. When things don’t go well, you see successful foks (such as Forjeo, LibreOffice, MariaDB). When things go well, you just see it thriving (such as Linux, most userland software).
To answer this and to conclude, for me personally, it’s not about how to write something. It’s about what is written. The fact that Slint aims to be good for a for-profit company, does not and will never nullify that MIT contributions are re-licensed as GPL or proprietary. It will come up, and it’s fair when it does… as I see it, at least.