3 ms·
> If it was under WTFL, the company would be able to release everything closed-source, which is exactly what the open source community is trying to discourage.
by sametmax 9y ago
> If it was under WTFL, the company would be able to release everything closed-source, which is exactly what the open source community is trying to discourage.
Apparently they already can. If there is no enforcement, what prevents anybody from doing it ? Good will.
> but that still doesn't mean they should get sued to oblivion, no matter how much I disagree with this practice.
Remove "should" and "to oblivion", and the result seems reasonable. After all, we can't give tickets like for speeding for those infraction. The only problem with sueing here is the cost of it.
But it's perfectly alright from a moral point of view. People worked hard, sometimes for free, for free software to exist, out of idealism. The only thing they demand is to accept the licence.
- wiz21c 9y agoYup, all of that is strange. Because if enforcement is rare, then a simple risk analysis allows everyone to leech without contributing back. Even more so if the only punishment you may have is "comply" (publishing code that is tied to your own personal hardware is not that much a problem, I think). Now that everybody knows the true political aim of the GPLv3 and that we know the pragmatism of BSD and others, I wonder under what license would the kernel have been published today...
- tpxl 9y ago>publishing code that is tied to your own personal hardware is not that much a problem, I think Code tied to your own hardware can lead to reverse engineering and creating other software to be used with said hardware. This is a good thing (for the user) though.
- icebraining 9y agoThe only thing they demand is to accept the licence. Well, the problem here is that they're actually demanding a few million euros.