> Define abuse? According to MIT/BSD, using the code in closed source > products is not abuse, it's simply use. Since that does not in any way > affect the freedom of the original MIT/BSD licensed code, it shouldn't > be a problem. Unless, of course, you want to restrict the users of > your code in what they can and can't do with it. If you want that, > fine, that's your choice, but please don't try to sell it as > "freedom", since that's simply not what it is.
Right. I like the GPL more than MIT, but I think giving others the ability to change something without releasing its source is not abuse. If I use MIT for a license, I have to accept that people will change the license. There is not only the GPL meaning of freedom. -- http://www.gnuffy.org - Real Community Distro http://www.gnuffy.org/index.php/GnuEm - Gnuffy on Ipaq (Codename Peggy)
