3 ms·
That's not even remotely what I'm saying. I'm saying if a company modifies open source software and distributes it, they should be required to distribute the m
by strbean 2y ago
That's not even remotely what I'm saying.
I'm saying if a company modifies open source software and distributes it, they should be required to distribute the modified source as well. I'm further claiming that providing a hosted service is a form of distribution.
> “free for everyone… except them - they make too much money.”
Free for everyone, and if you make changes to improve it, and let others use the software you changed, you contribute those changes back. That's the basic principle of OSS, no?
- gus_massa 2y ago> That's the basic principle of OSS, no? No, only for GPL. If the project has a BSD or MIT licence you may distribute the compiled version and keep the changes secret.
- snoman 2y agoApologies for the caricature. It’s clearly up for debate, but I’ve always thought that imposing obligations for how people use the product/code, or implying obligations for what the project is “owed” by users, isn’t free as in freedom, or beer. So I don’t think it’s a basic principle of open source. I think some people want it to be though. I get it though. People see aws et al making a business model of hosting FOSS and making boatloads of money doing it, and they don’t like it.