3 ms·
Not having competition is not the problem I have seen listed when abuse is talked about. It is not contributing back in ways that are promotional to how much th
by davorak 3y ago
Not having competition is not the problem I have seen listed when abuse is talked about. It is not contributing back in ways that are promotional to how much the company is benefiting. Or not going out of their way to acknowledge that they started with someone else's open source project, not even something like an academic citation.
- pessimizer 3y agoOpen source licenses don't require you to do those things. That was the intention in coming up with them. They were the Bazaar people. They sold open source as something that makes software quality better. It was the counterpoint to Free Software, who said they made programs morally better, and that it was largely irrelevant whether copyleft made software quality better.
- davorak 3y ago> Open source licenses don't require you to do those things. That was the intention in coming up with them. I mentioned the cases I have seen the word abuse used as a counter point to 'If somebody doesn't want any competitors' which is not something I have seen brought up when taking about abusing the spirit of open source. I was not taking about what the licenses legally bind you to do.
- tedivm 3y agoThere are open source licenses, such as the AGPL, which explicitly require that those changes being contributed back. There are licenses which require attribution. The fact the companies switching to the BS License is a sign that those aren't the real issues.
- davorak 3y agoAGPL is very explicit/narrow about how and when you give back not everyone will want exactly that. My last example of where I have seen the word abuse used is only about lack of attribution similar to an academic citation.