3 ms·
> I think community source should be accessible and usable outside the community. A community license should have a provision for paid use by corporations. If M
by ryao 2y ago
> I think community source should be accessible and usable outside the community. A community license should have a provision for paid use by corporations. If Microsoft wants to use it that is fine - if they pay.
That violates the first clause of the open source definition:
https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
It probably violates 5 and 6 too.
> But if Microsoft wants to fork things, to me that is predatory. If I can't fork windows, why should they be able to fork community software? If they argue that people should pay for their products, it just seems fair to me that they should not get community products for free.
Windows is not open source software.
- bornfreddy 2y agoMaybe the open source definition needs to change, or it is time to find a better way of protecting community software? This one is clearly (in some ways) not working.
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago> Maybe the open source definition needs to change Maybe you rather don't actually want your software to be open source. Maybe you rather want your software to be under some copyleft license. Maybe you want to use an OSS license that is inconvenient for cloud providers (while still being an open source license) like the AGPL. Choose wisely.
- starkparker 2y agothe OSCL turned 18 years old a month ago. maybe things have changed enough since then to validate revisiting it. OSI is too busy trying to come up with an equally mid (at best) OSAID for another thing thing that corporations already don't and won't care about following, so I don't expect them to prioritize it even if it got raised
- pabs3 2y agohttps://openhub.net/licenses/OSCL-C https://openhub.net/licenses/OSCL-C