view the rest of the comments
Linux
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
The thing that concerns me is the precedent it can set. At least according to this source, MIT is about the 3rd most popular open-source license. If one rightsholder decides to pull a WotC, how many will follow suit? Honestly think that license is a potential minefield.
(And just want to point out, this is not a matter of permissive vs copyleft. I think it's more a question of competency. The MIT license is just not a very rigorously written license from a legal standpoint. If you are a dev who wants similar features to the MIT but more carefully crafted, then the Apache 2.0 license is probably what you want. Otherwise if you want the closest thing to opting out of Copyright all together, then the Creative Commons Zero public domain pledge is your best choice).
And lastly, the Hippocratic License is worth looking into if other ethical considerations are something you need as well.