If gpl is a blocker for users then offer them a paid license with the exceptions they want. But MIT allows a commercial entity to ingest your code, close source it, and commercialize it .
GPL-3 (with the option of custom commercial licenses) seems strictly superior to MIT in this respect. Can you help me understand why this choice is so popular?
This comment was replying to someone asking "how could engineers possibly write such malicious code" so a more glaring example from a more mainstream company seemed quite appropriate.
I love this write-up. As a non-expert user of package managers I can quickly understand a set of patterns that have been deeply considered and carefully articulated. Thanks for taking the time to write up your observations!
There's a cool effect where if you hold a fluorescent tube under a high voltage power line, capacitive coupling from the varying electric field causes it to light up. Some energy is continually leaking out via this route, the tube just reveals it. (Magnetic induction too)
As you mention: Dedekind stopped corresponding with him after the publication, but also began keeping a copy of every letter he sent to Cantor.
Sure it's circumstantial, but it's exactly what you would do when you're the victim of a plagiarist.
In my eyes the burden of proof has been met.
reply