3 ms·
That's a field of use restriction, and thus incompatible with the open source definition curated by OSI.
by rectang 8y ago
That's a field of use restriction, and thus incompatible with the open source definition curated by OSI.
- captainbland 8y agoAs true as it is, I don't believe their definition is necessarily what is best for software or for developers. I don't believe that it is just that ownership of a product or its copyright, even in an open source capacity, should be transferred from developer to business owner if they're separate people. Overly permissive licenses encourage private business to take advantage of software commons without necessarily contributing any of their changes back to it, which alienates their own developers from the changes at the moment and while at the moment it is trendy for companies to create software under these licenses, there's no mechanism to guarantee future updates will also be released in such a permissive way.