5 ms·
> appending license that would prevent companies from using their software No, that would defeat the purpose of FLOSS entirely. They should aggressively defen
by craftyguy 8y ago
> appending license that would prevent companies from using their software
No, that would defeat the purpose of FLOSS entirely.
They should aggressively defend FLOSS licenses, which would include prosecuting some of their current members. If they allow members to take, for example, the Linux kernel, modify it, and not redistribute modifications to customers (as required by the GPL), then what exactly is the LF doing other than collecting membership dues from literally anyone that can afford it, and using funds to help members promote their 'we love open source' initiatives/marketing campaigns?
- giancarlostoro 8y ago> and not redistribute modifications to customers (as required by the GPL) Upon request the code should be made available, specifically if it's been modified and you are running the software. But yeah they should be at least open towards customers about it (those who have a right to said source, but also they can redistribute it legally under the GPL license terms).
- craftyguy 8y agoThe point is, at least two of the 'platinum members' of the Linux Foundation have publicly violated this. And yet, there they are.