News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Sj.h: A tiny little JSON parsing library in ~150 lines of C99. Parent comment

Re:Sj.h: A tiny little JSON parsing library in ~150 lines of... by rerdavies on Sunday September 21, 2025 @08:50PM (#45328053)
Kinda depends on whether you're publishing open source software so that people can use it. And if you're not publishing open source software so that people can use it, why exactly are you doing it? If you don't want people to use it, GPL is the way to go. If you do want people to use it, MIT or BSD is a much better way to go.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sj.h: A tiny little JSON parsing library in ~150 lines of... by xigoi on Monday September 22, 2025 @12:17AM (#45329056)
GPL is for when you want people to use it. MIT is for when you want megacorporations to turn it into enshittified proprietary software and profit off of it without giving back to you.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sj.h: A tiny little JSON parsing library in ~150 lines of... by rerdavies on Monday September 22, 2025 @12:31PM (#45335806)
Sure. Why not?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sj.h: A tiny little JSON parsing library in ~150 lines of... by jen20 on Sunday September 21, 2025 @09:10PM (#45328162)
Linux, Git and the entire GNU system are counterexamples. Meanwhile FreeBSD dies by the day.

People != the legal departments of corporations.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sj.h: A tiny little JSON parsing library in ~150 lines of... by TZubiri on Monday September 22, 2025 @12:34AM (#45329122)
>"If you don't want people to use it, GPL is the way to go"

lol

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sj.h: A tiny little JSON parsing library in ~150 lines of... by zelphirkalt on Monday September 22, 2025 @05:21AM (#45330935)
As a counterexample: I would rather use GPL or AGPL licensed code on my machine, than merely MIT licensed code, because I see the philosophical difference behind it, due to copyleft. Someone who makes some code available under (A)GPL wants it to stay available under a free software license. Someone who releases under MIT is either uninformed, or has different motivation , that does not fully align with keeping things libre for people. It is less safe against being made proprietary in the future. Anyone can come and make a new version that is proprietary and has that one more feature, luring people into using the proprietary version instead of the open source one.

So I have much more trust in (A)GPL licensed projects, and I see them as more for the people than MIT licensed projects.

[ Parent | on HN ]