I don’t know about the creators of this project, but in general: So that they can use the stuff in their closed source applications while finding enough contributors to write software for them for free.
After reading your link, they can absolutely be used interchangably in a comparison with copyleft licenses. Your own link says that they are very similar.
For some software, where EEE tactics aren’t a concern, but corporate adoption matters, these licenses make perfect sense. However. that’s not the case here: an OS is a prime target for EEE.
Why do groups insist on BSD/MIT/Apache style licensing…
I don’t know about the creators of this project, but in general: So that they can use the stuff in their closed source applications while finding enough contributors to write software for them for free.
deleted by creator
They all bear the same permissive properties
deleted by creator
Reading this text, it looks kinda like the difference between red (#FF0000) apples, red (#FF0001) apples, and red (#FF0100) apples…
After reading your link, they can absolutely be used interchangably in a comparison with copyleft licenses. Your own link says that they are very similar.
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/217/what-are-the-essential-differences-between-the-bsd-and-mit-licences#582
For anyone not wanting to read through that article, here’s the tl;dr:
Apache requires you to note what changes (if they’re “substantial”) you made to the code. Otherwise it’s identical to MIT.
BSD is effectively identical to MIT.
For some software, where EEE tactics aren’t a concern, but corporate adoption matters, these licenses make perfect sense. However. that’s not the case here: an OS is a prime target for EEE.
What is your issue with the licensing?
Removed by mod
Lol excellent use of emoji