3 ms·
Careful when you read and modify it, since it’s not actually an open source license, you can poison yourself if later in your career you decide to write a new t
by tolmasky 6y ago
Careful when you read and modify it, since it’s not actually an open source license, you can poison yourself if later in your career you decide to write a new thing in the same space. Someone could come and argue that you are writing a derivative work, similar to if you spent years seeing closed source software inside a company and then went and made a similar product. That’s the actual safety from using something like MIT, BSD, or Apache: who cares whether or not the projects you read and maybe even contributed to inspired you, or if code you later write coincidentally looks similar to code from these projects, it’s no strings attached! These licenses however have many of the same legal subtleties as the GPL, except with a more explicit commercial intent, and owned by parties who have already demonstrated that they become unhappy when competitors make more money than them (as opposed to the “spirit” of the GPL which ultimately just wanted everyone to be able to see the code).
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago> That’s the actual safety from using something like MIT, BSD, or Apache ... it’s no strings attached This is very misleading. For example, [L]GPLv3 explicitly introduced clauses to protect developers from patent trolling and to grant trademark usage. When releasing code you can be sued over patent issues or trademark infringement and MIT/BSD provides no protection.