3 ms·

viral how? You think it's morally ok to just use others work without contributing back any improvements/disclosing it to make money?

• earenndil 8y ago
  I wasn't expressing my own opinion on such licenses; 'viral' is accepted terminology for licenses like the gpl that require derivative works to use the same license. However, if you would like an argument, then yes. Or, rather, I think it's morally ok for people to make software under any license they choose, including licenses that allow big companies to use their work. Personally, I use bsd-3 for most of what I write, and I support other people who do the same. I also bear no ill-will to people who use gpl or apache or mpl or what-have-you.
  • xfer 8y ago
    > I think it's morally ok for people to make software under any license they choose Yes, you can make your own software under any license, GPL has no control over you. But it's not ok to fork a GPL software make internal changes and sell it like you wrote it. If that applied to linux, no hardware vendor would be contributing to linux.
    • earenndil 8y ago
      > But it's not ok to fork a GPL software make internal changes and sell it like you wrote it. Not only is that not ok, it's illegal... Who is doing that?
      • xfer 8y ago
        Lots of companies. Recently i saw some company doing that for mpd(checkout their site).
  • cesarb 8y ago
    "Viral" is a term normally used by opponents of licenses like the GPL, which is probably why the parent had a negative reaction; it's not a neutral term. (The neutral term is probably "copyleft".)
    • earenndil 8y ago
      Ahh ok. Too late to edit but I'll keep that in mind.