3 ms·
If you're referring to the post from yesterday, they actually relicensed it as Apache 2.0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45196173 https://news.ycombinato
by hxtk 1y ago
If you're referring to the post from yesterday, they actually relicensed it as Apache 2.0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45196173 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45196173
- kstrauser 1y agoNo, I had in mind different recent announcements when companies selected closed licenses that let you look at the code but not actually use it, then bragged about open sourcing their project.
- DetroitThrow 1y agoAnnouncement title and actual license divergence has made reading these announcements a bit of a chore on HN since you're required now to read the full post. Good on these guys for not open washing their project. And of course it doesn't help the tedium of reading HN that there's 5 very vocal commentators who want to the world to know that "OSI doesn't own the definition of open source", even though when asked will define open source as "can be commercially restricted".
- pgedge_postgres 1y agoWe definitely really appreciate how open source leads to real innovation and actually useful code; no intention of openwashing here. Thank you for noticing that :-)