4 ms·
Easier said than done. - It's risk for them with basically no upside. - Someone at their company needs to do a deep-dive into the code and verify that there a
by ghaff 10mo ago
Easier said than done.
- It's risk for them with basically no upside.
- Someone at their company needs to do a deep-dive into the code and verify that there aren't licensed third-party libraries and possibly remove them. Even companies that genuinely want to open source software that they've acquired may spend a year doing this sort of due diligence.
- tlavoie 10mo agoWell, or they could release a patch that simply nerfs the license check on the binary. No risk in terms of lost profits, for software they no longer sell.
- jasonjayr 10mo agoThat assumes the (a) the source is still available (b) the build environment is still available and working, (c) a staff member is still available that understands the system and/or (d) the time to figure it out and rebuild, test, and create the binary diff/patch ....