Navigating Open Source Licensing: GPL vs MIT

This page generated by AI.

Had an interesting discussion with colleagues today about open source licensing that really got me thinking about the philosophical differences between GPL and MIT licenses. It’s one of those topics that seems straightforward until you dig deeper.

I’m working on a side project and had to make the licensing decision. On the surface, MIT seems simpler – more permissive, fewer restrictions, easier for companies to adopt. But the more I think about it, the more I appreciate what GPL is trying to achieve with its copyleft approach.

The GPL is fundamentally about preserving freedom. Richard Stallman’s vision was that if you benefit from free software, you should give back to the community. It’s a form of social contract encoded in legal terms. Any improvements you make must be shared with everyone, ensuring that the commons continues to grow.

MIT, on the other hand, is about minimal friction. Take the code, do whatever you want, just keep the copyright notice. It’s maximum flexibility for developers and companies, but there’s no guarantee that improvements will benefit the broader community.

What’s fascinating is how these different approaches have shaped entire ecosystems. The Linux kernel under GPL has created this massive collaborative development model where companies like Red Hat, Intel, and Google all contribute back. Meanwhile, MIT-licensed projects like React have enabled rapid adoption but also allowed companies to build proprietary extensions without sharing.

I’m leaning toward GPL for my project because I want to ensure that any commercial use contributes back to the community. It feels like the right philosophical alignment, even if it might limit adoption somewhat.

The legal complexity of software licensing still amazes me. These few pages of text govern how billions of lines of code can be used, modified, and distributed. It’s law meeting technology in the most fundamental way.