6 ms·

Where are you getting this from? I can see all the source at https://github.com/atom https://github.com/atom. Every repo I checked has the MIT license.

by pbiggar 13y ago

sheetjs 13y ago
Can you build a fully functional version of Atom just from those repos? To compare, Apple releases source code for some components, but they definitely don't distribute "/System/Library/Extensions/Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext".
- Goopplesoft 13y ago
  I thought that file was a joke until I checked it and it actually exists. For those (like me) wondering what it does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93Intel_architecture#Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X.kext http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93Intel_architectur...
  - xentronium 13y ago
    Oh my, "DSMOS has arrived" line (and subsequent freeze) is gonna haunt me for years.
lobster_johnson 13y ago
The source of the actual editor isn't public.
- pritambaral 13y ago
  From IRC: <EvanDotPro> it will be open source, and other platforms, when it's out of beta
chimeracoder 13y ago
From Tom Preston-Warner himself: http://discuss.atom.io/t/why-is-atom-closed-source/82/8 http://discuss.atom.io/t/why-is-atom-closed-source/82/8 > Atom won't be closed source, but it won't be open source either. It will be somewhere inbetween, making it easy for us to charge for Atom while still making the source available under a restrictive license so you can see how everything works. We haven't finalized exactly how this will work yet. We will have full details ready for the official launch. However one tries to soften that language, that translates to a proprietary license of any standard definition of "proprietary"[0] [0] It actually sounds rather similar to the old proprietary license that Microsoft used to use (not sure if they still do anymore).
- davexunit 13y ago
  Wow, this is worse than I thought. If the source code is proprietary but GitHub accepts PRs from users, it means that users will be tricked into doing free work for GitHub and have no copyright claim on their work. From the discussion you linked, it seems that many people are happy about this unfortunate situation.

Where are you getting this from? I can see all the source at https://github.com/atom https://github.com/atom. Every repo I checked has the MIT license.

by pbiggar 13y ago

Where are you getting this from? I can see all the source at https://github.com/atom https://github.com/atom. Every repo I checked has the MIT license.

sheetjs 13y ago

Can you build a fully functional version of Atom just from those repos? To compare, Apple releases source code for some components, but they definitely don't distribute "/System/Library/Extensions/Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext".

Goopplesoft 13y ago
I thought that file was a joke until I checked it and it actually exists. For those (like me) wondering what it does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93Intel_architecture#Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X.kext http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93Intel_architectur...
- xentronium 13y ago
  Oh my, "DSMOS has arrived" line (and subsequent freeze) is gonna haunt me for years.

lobster_johnson 13y ago

The source of the actual editor isn't public.

pritambaral 13y ago
From IRC: <EvanDotPro> it will be open source, and other platforms, when it's out of beta

chimeracoder 13y ago

From Tom Preston-Warner himself: http://discuss.atom.io/t/why-is-atom-closed-source/82/8 http://discuss.atom.io/t/why-is-atom-closed-source/82/8 > Atom won't be closed source, but it won't be open source either. It will be somewhere inbetween, making it easy for us to charge for Atom while still making the source available under a restrictive license so you can see how everything works. We haven't finalized exactly how this will work yet. We will have full details ready for the official launch. However one tries to soften that language, that translates to a proprietary license of any standard definition of "proprietary"[0] [0] It actually sounds rather similar to the old proprietary license that Microsoft used to use (not sure if they still do anymore).

davexunit 13y ago
Wow, this is worse than I thought. If the source code is proprietary but GitHub accepts PRs from users, it means that users will be tricked into doing free work for GitHub and have no copyright claim on their work. From the discussion you linked, it seems that many people are happy about this unfortunate situation.