3 ms·
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13766933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13766933 Might not be satisfying for folks, but it seems people who understa
by cjdu 10y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13766933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13766933
Might not be satisfying for folks, but it seems people who understand the issues thing this is a non-thing.
FWIW, I understand the issues, am active in open source, and even ran a very large OSS project for four years which had huge contributor agreement, attribution and mixed licensing challenges (though IANAL), and I consider it a non-thing.
My tl;dr version - keep using github.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago> but it seems people who understand the issues thing this is a non-thing. Good thing I can get my legal advice from a random stranger on the internet with a brand new account. /s It most definitely is a thing if one needs qualified legal advice to determine whether it is a thing or not..
- cjdu 10y ago1242 day old account, but you know, whatever ;) Granted, I don't comment much. Guess I'm breaking that habit today. That's my end /s ;) But for real, yeah, always talk to a lawyer if you have questions. However, this is NOT unique to this situation. Open source licensing is essentially fucked. Too many people with opinions on what it means and almost no (if any?) case law on the topic. I love OSS, I love open source. I like that Richard Stallman exists in the world. However, the flip is that most ardent and staunch people who take excessively hardline stances on licenses are trading in exceedingly nuanced hair-splitting and increasing bike shed (define "is") discussions at best or their own version of OSS licensing FUD at worst. But, if your company depends on OSS and you don't know, talk to a lawyer of course.