3 ms·

Would you care to elaborate? To me, it seems very much in the 'spirit' of what GPL set out to do back when, updated to eliminate issues that weren't/couldn't ha

by _frkl 7y ago

Would you care to elaborate? To me, it seems very much in the 'spirit' of what GPL set out to do back when, updated to eliminate issues that weren't/couldn't have been forseen. Parity is not perfect (yet), but to me it's the most viable attempt at a modern copyleft license to date. Technically, one can argue Parity is not 'open source', if one acknowledges that only OSI approved licenses should be called 'open source'. I don't, and quite a few other folk don't either. Lots of people do, though.

type0 7y ago
To me it seems very unclear what this license means in practical terms. It mentions that contributions are needed unless it's prototype but definitions on what it means isn't there. Can you operate gmail-type of service, call it beta and not release the code for many years because it's "used for for non-production user testing"?