I generally prefer the MIT license for my personal projects. But I do stupid retro shit with no commercial value or any real tangible way to fundamentally alter how people work or communicate or do business.
I just want to put code out into the world without restriction - but that is a luxury I don't feel very conflicted about since the commercial applications of putting cat photos on floppy disks is quantifiably zero.
To be fair I've seen the opposite happen as well, where people will take code released into the public domain and write Rust bindings for it and release those as GPL or some other more restrictive license, and I think that sucks too.
How hard is it to just - keep the same license? Just preserve the author's intent. They had a vision in mind and made a choice when they put their creative energies out into the world. Pass that forward.
The idea that you can cleanroom a codebase with an LLM to safely pivot licensing is really not anything I need to waste words arguing is the thought process of the worst sort of dipshit tech bro.
If you're on the fediverse you know this already.
At least this latest indignity to human creativity doesn't seem to involve Rust, a language I deeply love but one that also has a serious Bro problem and is being wielded in similar sorts of license-washing.
from my limited 'murican perspective:
collectively, we used to ask if something was ethical.
at some point, the question simply became if it was technically legal
now we are in the era where the question is 'will anyone do anything about it to stop me?'
gloriouscow
John Faulkenbury