@@ -10,3 +10,14 @@ Since operating systems are such an integrated part of our lives, we want as lit
GPL is upstream-centric, MIT is downstream-centric. We happen to prioritize downstream more than upstream, since downstream is what really matters: the userbase, the community, the availability.
We wanted to encourage the use, modification, and packaging of Redox in absolutely all realms. Open source should be open, for everyone. There's absolutely no reason for limiting the usage of the software. Therefore, MIT was the license of choice.
But what if someone "steals" the source code?
---------------------------------------------
We wouldn't mind if somebody did that. For successfully steal a project, you'd have to do _some_ improvements over the upstream version. You can't sell an apple for $2, if another person stands right next to you, giving them away for free. For this reason, making a (potentially proprietary) fork interesting requires to put some time and money into it.
There is nothing wrong with building on the top of Redox. You can't _unfairly_ steal a project. That's simply not possible. For a fork to gain interest, you will no matter what have to put effort into it.
Building on the top of Redox, whether it gets to upstream or not, is a thing we appreciate.
We like to have a decentralized structure of the project, allowing people to do whatever they want, no matter how they intend to share it.
