Licensing Memes

So a tech journalist just suggested that open source should "ban itself" in certain countries based on geopolitics. That's like suggesting gravity should stop working in specific time zones because of trade disputes. The entire point of open source is that the code is, well, open . It's publicly available. You can't "ban" something that's already distributed across millions of repositories, forks, and local machines worldwide. Even if you deleted every GitHub repo tomorrow, the code would still exist on countless hard drives, mirrors, and archive sites. Trying to geofence open source is like trying to un-ring a bell or put toothpaste back in the tube. The MIT license doesn't come with geographical restrictions for a reason. That's literally the opposite of how information distribution works on the internet. But hey, at least we got a solid Boromir meme out of someone's fundamental misunderstanding of software licensing and distribution.

The MIT License is basically the "do whatever you want with my code, I don't care" of open source licenses. It's one of the most permissive licenses out there—you can copy, modify, distribute, sell, and even use it in proprietary software. The only requirement? Keep the copyright notice. So when a dev slaps an MIT license on their repo and then gets mad that someone "stole" their project... buddy, you literally gave everyone permission to do exactly that. That's like leaving your front door wide open with a sign saying "help yourself" and then calling the cops when someone takes your TV. The Persian cat's dramatic pose perfectly captures the absurdity of complaining about something you explicitly allowed. Should've gone with GPL if you wanted that copyleft protection, my friend.

The classic developer duality: "Sure, use my MIT-licensed code for anything you want!" followed by the existential crisis when someone actually does. It's like putting a "Free, take one" sign on your code and then having a meltdown when someone actually takes it. The MIT license is basically saying "here's my code, do whatever, just don't sue me" - until the theoretical becomes practical and suddenly you're questioning all your life choices. Nothing says "open source contributor" like the cognitive dissonance of wanting your work used while simultaneously feeling violated when it happens.

When a tech CEO meets an open source developer who's about to reveal how their company's "revolutionary proprietary algorithm" is actually just forked from a GitHub repo with zero attribution. The hand gesture isn't saying "stop"—it's frantically trying to pause the conversation before the entire board meeting discovers their $50M valuation is built on npm install and Stack Overflow copypasta.

The classic developer hypocrisy in its natural habitat! We're all for permissive licensing until someone actually exercises those permissions. "Sure, use my MIT-licensed code for anything... wait, you're SELLING it? With a different NAME?! How DARE you do exactly what I explicitly allowed!" The cognitive dissonance hits harder than a production bug on Friday afternoon. The MIT license is basically saying "do whatever you want" but our egos still can't handle seeing our precious code in someone else's commercial product. We want the street cred without the consequences of our licensing choices.