Post #4712298 · Elektrine

2026-09-15 22:21 UTC

I can’t speak for medical field… but a more serious topic, in example videogames. :D I think sometimes GPL can be in the way, so it is a tradeoff. In example if you use proprietary Steam features in your game, then you cannot build the game with GPL libraries and code, because that is not compatible with proprietary code. For some that is exactly what the GPL is set to do, for others its hindering games and other software to be released on Steam with Steam features. That means, its impossible to sell GPL software on Steam, if you want to use any of those features (I think in example Achievements and online save files in example). MIT would solve this issue.

Replies (3)

@ouch@lemmy.world 2026-09-15 22:26

Feature, not an issue.

Open ##4712339
@mesamunefire@piefed.social 2026-09-15 22:29

Ill be honest, I know of GPL but I know theres like 5 different versions of the GPL. Like AGPL is the most restrictive and has held up in court before because someone forked a project then stripped out everything, sold it again. And was deemed liable. MIT could potentially solve it…or make it even more messy. Ill believe you on videogames. If I were to guess, its probably moot in all cases unless it goes to court (or like my orgs not let you use software) and gets defended one way or another.

Open ##4712370
@provectus@lemmy.ml 2026-09-15 23:13

Do you know about the LGPL license? I think it allows you to statically link proprietary code, and the LGPL code remains open while the closed code remains closed. Modified and distributed lgpl still remain under the LGPL. en.wikipedia.org/…/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_Lice…

Open ##4712944