3 ms·
Richard Stallman, of all people, is not as intransigent as you. > I've considered selling exceptions acceptable since the 1990s, and on occasion I've suggested
by piaste 2y ago
Richard Stallman, of all people, is not as intransigent as you.
> I've considered selling exceptions acceptable since the 1990s, and on occasion I've suggested it to companies. Sometimes this approach has made it possible for important programs to become free software.
> [..] [S]elling exceptions permits limited embedding of the code in proprietary software, but the [non-copyleft] X11 license goes even further, permitting unlimited use of the code (and modified versions of it) in proprietary software. If this doesn't make the X11 license unacceptable, it doesn't make selling exceptions unacceptable.
> I consider selling exceptions an acceptable thing for a company to do, and I will suggest it where appropriate as a way to get programs freed.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html
- yencabulator 2y agoThe continuous-rugpull part of demanding CLAs is selling other people's work as proprietary. You'll hear much less complaining if you're selling your own work under a second license.
- piaste 2y agoIt feels unfair to describe it as a "rugpull" when the first bullet point, in bold, reads: > *Grant of copyright license*. You give HashiCorp permission to use your copyrighted work in commercial products. https://www.hashicorp.com/cla https://www.hashicorp.com/cla Unless that text was recently changed, or unless Hashicorp went out of its way to verbally reassure people that they didn't intend to ever exercise that option, I feel very little sympathy for any open source contributor who clicked that link and then was dismayed to find Hashicorp using his work in a commercial product. Read what you sign, and take responsibility.