3 ms·

I think your definition here is Off. Both Apache 2.0 and GPL qualify both as "Open Source" and "Free Software" Yes of course many large companies do not contr

I think your definition here is Off. Both Apache 2.0 and GPL qualify both as "Open Source" and "Free Software" Yes of course many large companies do not contribute. If your goal is to FORCE to contribute customers to your liking this is what Proprietary license is for. Go proprietary and you can discriminate customers based on their ability to pay. Open Source though requires same access - rich and poor, good and evil and especially relinquishing control for you to decide which is which

kdmccormick 4y ago
You are saying these things as if they are fact. > Open Source though requires same access - rich and poor, good and evil and especially relinquishing control for you to decide which is which No it doesn't. If you believe the legal system, then you believe that we can make real rules about people's behavior, even in circumstances where we won't physically be the there to force that behavior. More concretely: We can certainly say "this code is freely available to read" without saying "you can do whatever you want with this code with no repercussions", even though technically anyone can download any open source code and use it to run a business on their servers. If you do doubt that this is possible to enforce, then consider music: I can listen to almost any piece of modern music on Spotify. That does not mean I can use any piece of modern music in a commercial royalty-free unless I'm interested in getting sued. The question is not whether we can enforce Copyleft/etc licenses. It's whether we have the will and money to do so.