I'm a little unclear on why the license change would help monetization. Wouldn't an MIT license allow big companies to just use it and not pay?
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
11 points (82.4% liked)
Technology
34879 readers
56 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I think they are changing it because essentially nobody is really willing to pay for a linker that saves a few seconds at most over LLVM's lld. So they weren't actually seeing anyone pay for the corporate license. So now they're hoping to get more crowd funding going by making it more permissive.
At least in my experience, with Rust, it is a noticeable difference. But yeah, not enough for any but the most generous boss to pay for