3 ms·
What a completely disingenuous argument. Oracle never held the sole copyright on Linux, never controlled Linux, nor was it ever a significant contributor to Lin
by darksaints 5y ago
What a completely disingenuous argument. Oracle never held the sole copyright on Linux, never controlled Linux, nor was it ever a significant contributor to Linux. There was never any threat that Oracle would take Linux closed source and start charging you for it after you've built significant infrastructure on it.
There's a reason you have to give Oracle joint copyright ownership if you contribute to GraalVM. They want to be able to close the source and sell it.
- kaba0 5y ago> They want to be able to close the source and sell it. What a completely disingenuous argument without any concrete facts. Also, you can’t close source something with a permissive dual license.
- darksaints 5y agoYes, you can. The copyright owner always has that right...which is why Oracle now requires all contributors to assign joint copyright ownership of their code to Oracle. In fact, the only reason you would need copyright ownership of contributor code is to reserve the right to change the licensing. Oracle wanted to do it with MySQL, but their lack of copyright ownership for some parts of a GPL-ed MySQL codebase made it impossible. They fixed that mistake with their new contributor agreement, ensuring that they always have control over your code if you contribute.