I feel like MIT license will prevent this from ever becoming a linux alternative unless of course they switch to something more sane later on.

▲

qalmakka 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Linux didn't win because it was GPL'd, it won because it was the only real alternative back in '92. The BSDs were all caught up in the moronic SCO lawsuits of the time, otherwise we'd all be using FreeBSD or some other 386BSD variant today instead of Linux. The GPL was a nice bonus but it isn't the real secret sauce that has powered Linux's growth, it was mostly good timing.

That doesn't mean that I'd rather see some form of copyleft in place (like the MPLv2) or at least a licence with some kind of patent protection baked in (like the Apache 2.0), the X11/MIT licences are extremely weak against patent trolls

▲

bigstrat2003 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There's nothing insane about MIT. It may not be your preference, but that's not the same as insane.

	▲	wraptile 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		other licenses being more sane doesn't imply MIT is _insane_ per se. It's just not a very sane option for cooperation and has a very real posibility of driving someone insane. Imagine working on redoxos for years with your friends and then Microsoft takes your work, rebrands it as Windows 19, completely steals all of the market from you and silences you through legal pressure without even crediting your work. All of this is very much possible and similar scenarios have happened before. MIT is for education not cooperation.
	▲	omnimus 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I am not native speaker but saying something is more sane doesn't mean the person means/thinks other option is insane (which is the extreme on the scale). It can mean both of the options might be sane (reasonable) one is just more reasonable. It might also mean both of the options are insane (unreasonable) one is just less so.