4 ms·
As I understand it, they've released all of their code for a long time under an open source license and continue to release their source code and allow non-comp
by weberc2 8y ago
As I understand it, they've released all of their code for a long time under an open source license and continue to release their source code and allow non-competitors to use it for free. All contributions from the community are also available under open source licenses? (this is my understanding, anyway)
In your mind, how should a "committed to open source" company respond to an existential threat (not only to the business, but to the project given the business is the primary sponsor of the project)? Are there better open source licenses that allow them to meet the same ends? Or should they just cease to exist, lay off their staff, and abandon the project out of a Stallmanic dream of open source?
- didibus 8y agoI think they could go with a copyleft license. Or they should just announce that they are no longer committed to open source.
- weberc2 8y ago> Or they should just announce that they are no longer committed to open source. Why? Because < 100% of their code is open source? This seems infeasibly idealistic, and a false dichotomy. You can be a proprietary software company that is still very committed to open source. Anyway, if < 100% is the standard, surely Amazon is worse yet, no?