3 ms·
But with open source projects the community has the option to fork and carry on the code as the community wishes. With licenses where a company owns and limits
by prepend 3y ago
But with open source projects the community has the option to fork and carry on the code as the community wishes.
With licenses where a company owns and limits the IP, the community is stuck and can just stop using the project.
I think that’s a big difference.
- byefruit 3y agoThis project is MIT-licensed, so that applies here too?
- gene91 3y agoMIT license is one of the most permissive open source software licenses. What’s the problem?
- lukaszwojtow 3y agoProblem: They want someone else to maintain this feature long-term.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- School-Cotton 3y agoYou can fork this, otherwise it would not be open source by definition.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y agoSource-available is not open source. Which situation are you describing? A traditional open source project, with a traditional open source license, still won’t tend to allow people carte blanche access to things like e.g. trademarks. Otherwise, your rights tend to be fairly equal to that of an open-core project .
- bmitc 3y ago(a) You could do that here. (b) It's not exactly realistic to take on every open source project because the maintainers refuse certain simple fixes and additions. You'd very quickly become a hoarder of open source projects.