2 ms·

>Don't assume that people who disagree with you simply don't understand you. It's not that you disagree, it's that you imply that forks would be impossible or

>Don't assume that people who disagree with you simply don't understand you. It's not that you disagree, it's that you imply that forks would be impossible or that the suggestion amounts to "look but don't touch". These suppositions are clearly NOT what I am saying, so I am replying to correct and/or clarify my position. I don't really have anything new to contribute to your arguments other than I consider a license grant irrevocable based on purchasing the game or whatever. Just as you can't go take back someone's copy of Windows because you don't like their political views, you shouldn't be able to go and take away someone's license for new_game because you disagree or think they should have paid more or whatever. It is true that under this proposition the original author would have to be paid if you wanted to use a fork and had never paid for the original copy of the software.

JoshTriplett 15y ago
And if the original author disappears, or stops selling licenses at all, or changes their license to "we will not sell you a copy if you use $OTHER_FORK"? As I said, the original author can easily kill the entire community or any individual part of it at any time. Consider what would have happened if Oracle had that kind of power over the communities that formed LibreOffice or Jenkins; those projects wouldn't have survived in such an environment. On top of all of that, what makes the original author so special here? The community adds a huge pile of value, often more than the original author, and yet only the original author gets to demand payment? Or should this become like the NetBSD license's ever-accumulating attribution clauses, with a hundred different authors to pay license fees to?