3 ms·
What exactly is your issue with that licence? I ask having published some code under it recently. I understand that it's "non free" but half the time people on
by boyter 10y ago
What exactly is your issue with that licence? I ask having published some code under it recently. I understand that it's "non free" but half the time people on seem to want source because they think they should see it.
I am going to put a timebomb in my software though. Each major release will become GPL3 exactly 3 years after its release. Would these terms be acceptable to you?
- parent5446 10y agoThe purpose of free software is to protect the freedom of users to use, modify, and distribute the source code they run on their computer. If it doesn't fit that definition, it's considered violating those rights.
- boyter 10y agoI am familiar with the FSF line on this. The same argument applies to any closed source software. However I want to know why OP is against the Fair Source licence, especially if it is time-bombed with a clause that reverts to GPL after a period of time.
- piotrkaminski 10y agoI'm also curious what the issue is. While I understand that a full open source license would be preferable to many, if the choice is between Fair Source and a proprietary code base, is there a rational reason for users to prefer the latter? (Assuming, of course, that the licensor doesn't try to spin the Fair Source as open source in PR, which would be annoying. I assume Sourcegraph doesn't do this, though.)
- sqs 10y agoSourcegraph CEO here. Your assumption is right. :) The Fair Source site (https://fair.io https://fair.io) and our own materials are clear about Fair Source not being open source. If you see any folks out there getting confused, let me know!