3 ms·
> If they aren’t open sourcing the innovations they make on top of open source software I'm not sure I'm reading your statement correctly, but it sounds like y
by SquishyPanda23 8y ago
> If they aren’t open sourcing the innovations they make on top of open source software
I'm not sure I'm reading your statement correctly, but it sounds like you're saying that anything not developed under a copyleft license is proprietary.
If it was important for authors to receive contributions from derivative works, why would they have selected a license that doesn't require that?
- jf- 8y agoI don’t see how you interpreted it that way - anything released with a proprietary license, or closed source and not released at all, is proprietary. The fact that it’s derivative of an MIT or similarly licensed work makes no difference.
- SquishyPanda23 8y agoYes, sorry, I thought you were giving it a normative interpretation, but you were just stating a fact. I agree that your statement is correct.