3 ms·
I suppose it's licensed under a non open source license until it's released to the public. If so, you can prosecute such individuals who break the license.
by cercatrova 6y ago
I suppose it's licensed under a non open source license until it's released to the public. If so, you can prosecute such individuals who break the license.
- jraph 6y agoRemaining open source but banning the user who leaks the source code from the repository could work too, no? (the RedHat way). So as a user, you can start some work based on the insider version and be confident that you will be able to release your work even if the insider version never goes public for some reason, instead of relying on a promise that the code will be released in an open source license.
- DelightOne 6y agoHow to find out who leaked? Can you make github insert a kind of fingerprint?
- squidfunk 6y agoIt's MIT-licensed, as the original project. I have no interest in legal prosecution. Also, different licensing would make it more complicated for companies.
- bonestamp2 6y ago> different licensing would make it more complicated for companies True, although just removing a couple of words from the MIT license would still be a very attractive and easy to use license. Examples of words you might remove: "sell" and "sublicense".
- OJFord 6y agoNo company (that cares about licences in the first place(!)) is going to touch 'MIT, but with some words removed'.