4 ms·
> Hell, they could even make it Open Source with a clause preventing other companies from using to code to make a profit Such a clause would immediately make i
by TheDong 1y ago
> Hell, they could even make it Open Source with a clause preventing other companies from using to code to make a profit
Such a clause would immediately make it Source Available not Open Source.
- netdur 1y agoby that logic GPL wouldn’t be open source either since it also adds restrictions unlike the fuck license nowadays github is filled with so-called open source projects under GPL3 but the maintainers want you to pay for a dual license
- TheDong 1y agoLet's look at the OSI definition since that's what people mean by Open Source (particularly when capitalized): https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd > The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. > No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor You cannot restrict selling derivatives of the software (a field of endeaver), and the derived work must be able to be shared under a similar license. GPL does not add any restrictions counter to that. It allows you to redistribute and sell copies if you want, you just have to respect your user's freedom by also giving them the modified source code.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]