4 ms·
MIT doesn't allow no corporate to claim ownership on your software, much unlike open-core GNU licenses that promote CLA-s and thwart any competition.
by remix2000 4y ago
MIT doesn't allow no corporate to claim ownership on your software, much unlike open-core GNU licenses that promote CLA-s and thwart any competition.
- papruapap 4y agoThey will do a fancy wrapper and no credits will be given though. Users will never see MyApp only the MyAppFancyCloudVersion
- remix2000 4y agoThat would be breaking the terms of the license. Could've as well just taken some AGPL-licensed code and not release the source.
- bayindirh 4y agoThe issue is not credits (well, companies tend to forget doing this, too), but contribution of the improvements made to the base. xGPL family of licenses force contribution back of improvements, and rightfully, it's not about developer freedom, but user freedom.
- pabs3 4y agoThe copyleft licenses don't require to give anything back, they only require to give source code forward to downstream users, who may or may not contribute back upstream to the original project.
- bayindirh 4y agoAt least, you keep the source code in the open, and the changes stay in the open. It's giving enough, when compared to BSD/MIT and similar "permissive" licenses to fork away without making anything available.
- pabs3 4y agoNo, the changes don't have to stay in the open, they only have to get given to your downstream users, not publicly in the open and not back to the upstream project. You can definitely fork a GPL project without making anything public, although your users can choose to make the modified code that you send to them public, but they might not ask for it or might not publish it if they do get it.
- nunobrito 4y agoWho will really know? Most commercial products just write some useless statement like "this software may use open source components" or include a generic MIT license without the original copyright holder statement inside. Who is telling these companies they are doing it wrong? Very rare when someone ever does.
- LtWorf 4y agoEver seen the android about info? It has licenses and copyright information for a loooooong list of android's components.
- nunobrito 4y agoYes, reviewed it professionally. Despite their effort, can tell you that it is still incomplete and innacurate. These kind of things take several months of efforts by deep expert, when it is done by normal open source developers who think they know about licenses and compliance, it tends to result in poor results even if the output looks "big" from a surface view.
- ilyt 4y ago> MIT doesn't allow no corporate to claim ownership on your software, Nor requires them to give anything back. Putting your code in MIT license is basically slogan "take all of it and give nothing back". Which is why so many corporate developers push for it, no lawyer to talk to when you take MIT-licensed code to use in your project. > much unlike open-core GNU licenses that promote CLA-s and thwart any competition. There are no "open core GNU licenses". It is just perversion of the idea and abusing the fact some of them are not restrictive enough that you can still have paid parts that are closed source
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pabs3 4y ago> [MIT] Nor requires them to give anything back. The copyleft licenses don't require to give anything back either, they only require to give source code forward to downstream users, who may or may not contribute back upstream to the original project.
- ilyt 4y agoSo they require to give something back to the users of the software
- GoblinSlayer 4y agoGiving back not in the form of a spoon fed pull request begging to merge? Does it really happen?
- pabs3 4y agoI'd call that giving something forward rather than back, like the "pay it forward" movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_it_forward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_it_forward