Why the MIT license?

In the free software community, we all share the common goal of doing what is best for users. However, there is disagreement over which license best serves this goal, and I clarify here why I have chosen the MIT license (a permissive license), over the GPL (a copyleft license).

As a reminder, copyleft refers to a condition in the GPL that requires all "derivative work" to be also released under the GPL. In the most simple terms, the GPL means: "I allow you to use the code, but only if you allow me back to use your code", while the MIT means: "I allow you to use the code, no strings attached".

There are interesting arguments provided by the creators of the GPL why adding such copyleft clause may guarantee more "freedom" to users in the long term. However, I am personally not convinced by these arguments. At the contrary, I think that more free software and better free software would be available to users if we were all using the MIT, or similar permissive licenses. Below are two very concrete examples why, in the case of VPaint.

1. With the MIT license, unlike the GPL, existing commercial animation packages can integrate VPaint technology. This means that the features you love in VPaint are much more likely to also become part of ToonBoom, TVPaint, Anime Studio, Flash, Illustrator, etc. This is obviously great for users of commercial software (since they will get even better commercial software), but it is also great for users of free software. Indeed, if an open technology is shared with commercial software, it increases the chances to have an open vector graphics file format supported by both free and commercial applications. And even better, it increases the chances of a future industry standard format to be open. Instead, by using the GPL, it is more likely that the industry standard file format stays closed, with the consequence that free software will keep having poor or buggy import/export from and to these formats.

2. With the MIT license, unlike the GPL, animation studios can integrate VPaint technology in their in-house software. Why do we care? Well, first, this helps them, and particularly the smallest animation studios, to make movies at a lower cost, and therefore we are more likely to see great indie 2D animated films. Secondly, animation studios, and particularly the biggest studios in this case, have a huge influence into what features become industry standard, so it is beneficial for the free software community if the features they use are open (see previous point). Finally, it makes the lives of all animators better, including professional animators in a studio context. Example: if an animator working for a studio likes a feature from VPaint, then they can ask the studio's software development team to implement it. If VPaint is licensed under the MIT, then they are more likely to implement it since they can re-use the code of VPaint. Instead, if VPaint is licensed under the GPL, then the studio cannot use the existing code even though it's "free software", and since VPaint's features are hard to implement, the software development team will probably conclude: "Sorry, it is too costly to implement this VPaint's feature, you'll have to make the movie with our existing tools". This would just be plain stupid, I want all animators to have easier access of VPaint's features, this is what I think better capture the spirit of free software.

Finally, I'd like to conclude with this thought: it is quite clear that a given code under the MIT is more "free" than the same code under the GPL (i.e., the MIT grants more rights to licensees than the GPL). A way to think about the GPL is that it takes away some freedom in the short term ("you are forbidden to use this code if you don't share back"), in the hope that it will provide more freedom in the long term ("if people are forced to share back, there might be more free software in the future"). But personally, I am not willing to gamble today's freedom for the prospect of tomorrow's freedom, especially when there is no scientific evidence to support such theory. At the contrary, if a company using your code is forced to share their code, most often they would just decide not to use your code at all. But if you don't force them to share their code, then they are more likely to use your code, and if they do they will probably contribute back improvements anyway (since it is more beneficial to stay in sync with the official version rather than maintaining an internal fork). Therefore, I believe that if more developers where choosing the MIT instead of the GPL, there would in fact be more free software, and maybe more importantly, better free software.