alt Hacker NewsIf that were true, the FSF wouldn't call it a free license.
Replies
fn-mote • yesterday at 1:54 PM
You should have linked the MIT License on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) instead of Free Software.
The license is only three paragraphs long. You can see it does not contain text supporting your claim.
➕ show 1 reply
> If that were true, the FSF wouldn't call it a free license.
It is true; the license gives you the source, to do with as you please, including closing it off.
Famously, Microsoft included BSD licensed tools in Windows since the 90s and did not distribute the sources!
And that is completely legal. If you want to force the users to distribute their changes to your open source product when they are redistributing the product, you need to use GPL.