5 ms·

Or they charge you to upgrade to the latest version and then lock you out of the software if you aren't up to date because it isn't secure. That could happen to

Or they charge you to upgrade to the latest version and then lock you out of the software if you aren't up to date because it isn't secure. That could happen to.

animal_spirits 5y ago
If it is open source then we can just fork off of the last free version. Lets at least take advantage of the corporations who also want successfully maintained software.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Corporations don't have to maintain open source software under open source licenses if, for example, that software was released under MIT or BSD licenses. They could very well take an project with an MIT license and make it proprietary, and there won't be any free versions to fork from.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Corporations don't have to maintain open source software under open source licenses if, for example, that software was released under MIT or BSD licenses. If they own the copyright and control the only source code available, they can change the license regardless of whether it is permissive or copyleft currently. If they do only the second, they can shut down the repo regardless of the license, even if they don't change the license, and unless it's something like AGPL continue internal use. If they don't control the only archive of source code, then even if they can change the license going forward, other people can continue to distribute and fork off from the last Free version (again, irrespective of whether permissive or restrictive.) Unless they both own the copyright and have the legal power to retract the license offer for the earlier code (contrary to the usual express terms of license grants, which may be possible if it is a gratuitous license, but even if it is may not be fully effective in all cases because of promissory estoppel.)
nolok 5y ago
Does the license permit it ? If yes then they're not doing anything that the author didn't want them to do.
- Teever 5y ago
  They license may permit it but the author may not have envisioned this kind of nefarious use that the license permitted. If you're outside sweeping your steps and I walk by and ask to see your broom for a second and then I beat you to death with your broom you aren't to blame because you handed me your broom.
  - nolok 5y ago
    Your broom example is flawed and in no way a match to the situation. If you build a broom and I ask if I can see it and you say yes you can see it and you are free to make another one like it for yourself and make more to sell for everyone else, then you can't complain about them doing it. As for the "they didn't envision", then it's entirely their fault. If they put their code online using default copyright law, this wouldn't be allowed, they specifically picked a license that allow it.

Or they charge you to upgrade to the latest version and then lock you out of the software if you aren't up to date because it isn't secure. That could happen to.

animal_spirits 5y ago

If it is open source then we can just fork off of the last free version. Lets at least take advantage of the corporations who also want successfully maintained software.

heavyset_go 5y ago
Corporations don't have to maintain open source software under open source licenses if, for example, that software was released under MIT or BSD licenses. They could very well take an project with an MIT license and make it proprietary, and there won't be any free versions to fork from.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Corporations don't have to maintain open source software under open source licenses if, for example, that software was released under MIT or BSD licenses. If they own the copyright and control the only source code available, they can change the license regardless of whether it is permissive or copyleft currently. If they do only the second, they can shut down the repo regardless of the license, even if they don't change the license, and unless it's something like AGPL continue internal use. If they don't control the only archive of source code, then even if they can change the license going forward, other people can continue to distribute and fork off from the last Free version (again, irrespective of whether permissive or restrictive.) Unless they both own the copyright and have the legal power to retract the license offer for the earlier code (contrary to the usual express terms of license grants, which may be possible if it is a gratuitous license, but even if it is may not be fully effective in all cases because of promissory estoppel.)

nolok 5y ago

Does the license permit it ? If yes then they're not doing anything that the author didn't want them to do.

Teever 5y ago
They license may permit it but the author may not have envisioned this kind of nefarious use that the license permitted. If you're outside sweeping your steps and I walk by and ask to see your broom for a second and then I beat you to death with your broom you aren't to blame because you handed me your broom.
- nolok 5y ago
  Your broom example is flawed and in no way a match to the situation. If you build a broom and I ask if I can see it and you say yes you can see it and you are free to make another one like it for yourself and make more to sell for everyone else, then you can't complain about them doing it. As for the "they didn't envision", then it's entirely their fault. If they put their code online using default copyright law, this wouldn't be allowed, they specifically picked a license that allow it.