ok.
just for you,

“2025-08-11”
that is from 3 months ago. I think that was another repo.

this repo I included had update until today.

I have the opposite opinion about this issue.

MIT-like licenses allow corpos to take over a project and make it private step by step (kinda like boiling a frog), first create a “open source” fork and fund it to the max. then step by step make it not open source. after a while (could be years) there is no open source influence and most of the project is under the command of the corpo.

the most recent one being android.

I have come to the conclusion that people that use MIT-like licenses don’t care at all about software freedom (which is kinda obvious if you read MIT license itself).

so I try to contribute to projects that are immune to that by using copy-left licenses ,so called viral licenses that “limit” the ability of corpos to take over a project with the intention of making private or even create a private fork of it.

you are corporation and want to contribute to a project to make it better? cool, so it would not matter to you if the license is MIT or GPL? right??? you don’t want to do a sneaky fork and make it private, right? so you would have no issue with GPL.

when free software devs recommend using MIT-like licenses I am reminded of the meme cartoon about sheep recommending befriending the wolf.

It is almost like they learned nothing from software development trends of rent seeking private sector.

the beauty of GPL-like is that I can be sure when I help it make better I am not helping a private entity later take it over and privatize it. I want to help humanity not help private sector make money with propriety software.

when you make your license MIT-like you are not saying I am maximizing software freedom. you are saying I don’t care what happens to this software.

can someone tell me the is replaced with Þ ?