3 ms·
>Open-source licenses are killing open-source How? If I put my code on GitHub and I don't put an open source license on it, it's not open source, it's propriet
by Hamuko 4y ago
>Open-source licenses are killing open-source
How? If I put my code on GitHub and I don't put an open source license on it, it's not open source, it's proprietary.
- iLoveOncall 4y ago[flagged]
- croes 4y agoAnd my point is, if you take from a public repository yours is public too. If you take, you give.
- iLoveOncall 4y ago[flagged]
- croes 4y agoTaking without giving that's the real way to kill open source.
- creatable 4y agoHave you seen the Ms-PL? It appears to be deliberately GPL incompatible while also having a similar list of conditions as the MIT license. I think it should be the default license for public repositories.
- iLoveOncall 4y ago[flagged]
- creatable 4y agoSection D is what makes it specifically GPL incompatible. The problem with not having ANY terms is that people can make derivatives of your software under new conditions, due to how copyright law works. You need conditions to impose the lack of conditions.
- shkkmo 4y agoYou're arguing for increasing developer freedom by removing their ability to issue the license of their choice? There are licenses that provide no restrictions and licenses like GPL that do. Developers should be free to offer whatever licenses they want on their code. Just because you like a particular kind of license, doesn't mean you should be able to make everyone who publishes a public repository use that license.