4 ms·
> Yes, there have been companies that called their thing open source even though it wasn't, by the OSI definition, and that's a shitty move. But my impression i
by jsnell 8y ago
> Yes, there have been companies that called their thing open source even though it wasn't, by the OSI definition, and that's a shitty move. But my impression is that Confluent is not one of those companies.
When you take an open source project and re-license it under a proprietary license (without changing the name, the repository, etc), a lot of scrubbing will be required to erase all representations of the project as being open source.
For example here it took one page view and about 5 seconds to find an example: the ksql repo [0] still has the open-source tag.
[0] https://github.com/confluentinc/ksql https://github.com/confluentinc/ksql
- skrebbel 8y agoIsn't it just a matter of time before that gets fixed? I imagine they can scrub the majority of those cases in a few weeks if not faster. I mean I see your point, and I appreciate you taking the time to answer. But it's a fixable problem, right?
- jsnell 8y agoYes, clearly once it was pointed out it was going to just be a matter of time :) But I just think that even with the best of intentions, it'll take a long long time for every such reference to be found, reported and fixed.
- skrebbel 8y agoHah actually you made me curious now :-) Knowing the FOSS community a bit, I'd personally imagine every GitHub repo flooding with subtly pedantic but well-meaning issues and pull requests titled "fix licensing". Thanks again for your thoughts by the way.