3 ms·
You can spin it any way you want, but to me, expropriating the intellectual property of the non-profit (obtained under the pretense of being a non-profit) and e
by rdiddly 8y ago
You can spin it any way you want, but to me, expropriating the intellectual property of the non-profit (obtained under the pretense of being a non-profit) and exploiting it for private gain is the issue here. Even though that part is apparently legal. (Unless challenged in court somehow. We'll see.)
- jjeaff 8y agoIsn't exploiting the intellectual property of a non-profit for financial gain the business model for essentially every single tech company in existence? That is, at least every tech company that has open source software somewhere in their stack - which is presumably all of them.
- rdiddly 8y agoTouché, and you could argue that every big success story from the last couple centuries was based on exploiting some kind of freebie. (I'm thinking of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, and Vanderbilts of the world.) Although there are some OSS licenses that address this by restricting commercial uses more heavily. I dunno... if everyone goes into it with eyes open, that seems fine to me. It's when they pull the ol' bait-and-switch that makes me go hmmmm...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Dylan16807 8y ago> every tech company that has open source software Can you name one that piled patents on top of the open source IP? But this isn't just an accusation of using the IP of a non-profit, it's an accusation of making a 'fake' non-profit to get things under false pretenses.