3 ms·

I don't see the problem here. The way I understand open source is that the source is available and can be distributed forward. I think it's bit troubling to de

by wavesum 13y ago

I don't see the problem here. The way I understand open source is that the source is available and can be distributed forward. I think it's bit troubling to define Open Source as "Free" software as defined by GPL. That's very misleading as it is very far from free since you are not free to distribute any parts of your software with any other license. GPL is like legal virus. Thumbs up for the OP. Good, altruistic effort.

belorn 13y ago
So sad for you that one must follow the license. I guess it would be more "free" if people where allowed to ignore copyright all out. Music, and music software particularly. Since people try to say that I live in a free country, I guess I should also be allowed kill anyone, torture, and do anything I would like to. How dare they have laws and at the same time say that I am free. Its so misleading. Truly troubling how they define it as "Free". I guess in your world, BSD is also a virus, demanding that all advertising materials must include the acknowledgement that: This product includes software developed by the <organization>.