• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    91 year ago

    I usually use MIT, partially because my current interests (AI/LLM stuff) involve interfacing with some other projects that are MIT and partially because it’s just a simple “do whatever” license and I don’t really care to enforce terms. Of course, if I thought some government or company was going to use stuff I develop to launch the nukes or control a robot fist to punch cute little puppies right in the snout then I’d start using a more restrictive license but the odds of that are… pretty much nonexistent for everything I’ve ever created.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      if I thought some government or company was going to use stuff I develop to launch the nukes or control a robot fist to punch cute little puppies right in the snout then I’d start using a more restrictive license

      A more restrictive license wouldn’t help in that case. They would just have to publish any changes they made to your code. The primary benefit of restrictive licenses like the GPL is to prevent someone from using your code in a proprietary project without contributing anything back.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        A more restrictive license wouldn’t help in that case.

        Well, it depends. Elsewhere in the thread, people mentioned licenses that have ethics clauses:

        1. https://firstdonoharm.dev/
        2. https://anticapitalist.software/

        How enforceable (or whether I would actually have the resources to do something) these are is another problem, but it still might give some entity pause. Just generally though, using a restrictive license like GPL is pretty likely to make Puppy Punching Worldwide Inc look for other alternatives as well. Odds are, their puppy punching software isn’t going to be compatible with a license like the GPL.