3 ms·
That restriction makes this quite blatantly not open source or free software, under the accepted definitions. Why couldn't they just release this under the MIT
by dublinben 10y ago
That restriction makes this quite blatantly not open source or free software, under the accepted definitions. Why couldn't they just release this under the MIT license or something else like that?
- omginternets 10y ago>Why couldn't they just release this under the MIT license or something else like that? I don't mean to be unpleasant (really!), but I don't understand what kind of answer you are expecting to get. The only non-trivial answer one can give is also the most obvious: Facebook doesn't want to make free software. Stated differently: why the assumption that Facebook is in the business of Free software? Or are you just expressing the desire for all companies to produce Free (in the Stallmanian sense) software? Or are you reacting to the implication that Facebook's software qualifies as free? I only bring this up because these kinds of loaded questions have a way of devolving into flame-wars.
- morvita 10y ago> Today, we’re excited to open-source and share this library more broadly, so that others can work together to build more delightful products. Facebook's post explicitly states they view this as an open source library. So, while I agree that we cannot assume Facebook is in the business of free software, their post says they are releasing an open source library under a license that does not appear to follow OSI definition of open source.