<metaname="description"content="In this blog post I wanna sort of explain why I switched to the GNU GPLv3 license after having used the MIT license for such a long time. The reason is quite simple. Both are free software licenses but the MIT license and most other licenses are missing one specific point that I really like and it's the main reason why I switched. Should you switch to GNU GPLv3?">
<p>It's fairly simple. Both are free software licenses but the MIT license and most other licenses are missing one specific point that I really like and it'sthemainreasonIswitched.</p>
<p>EssentiallyI'm writing their software for them, so then they can just fork it and make proprietary spyware out of it. This has happened to many different projects and you can thank these licenses that don'tpreventalicensechangeforproprietaryfirmwareandothernastystuffthat(probably)runsonyourGNU/Linuxbox.SomepeoplemayarguethattheGPLisactuallynon-freebecauseit<i>doesn't</i>letyouforkunderanotherlicensebutIheavilydisagree</p>
<p>Atfirstitmayseemlikethatbutassoonassomeoneforksyoursoftwareandchangesthelicensetoanon-freelicenseyouhaveMOREproprietaryspywaresointheendyou're causing more problems than you'resolving.TheGPLessentiallytriestoendproprietarysoftwarebyprovidingalicensewhichguaranteesfreedomlikeIstatedinmy<ahref="https://speedie.site/post13">previouspost.</a>whichissomethingIsupport.Sothatbegsthequestion.ShouldyouswitchtotheGNUGPLv3license?</p>
<p>Now,Iwouldliketoaddthatifyou're heavily against the GNU project or the Free Software Foundation due to Richard Stallman, then you probably do not want to use the GPL. And most of the time the people who choose to NOT use the GPL for this reason cannot actually find a justifiable reason for their choice. I don'tknowaboutyouandit's not my decision but either way the GPL is just a <i>software license</i> and therefore it really doesn'tmatterwhowroteit.Justknowthatbyusingalicensethatdoesn't prevent/stop non-free software, you'remakingtheworldaworseplace.</p>