4 ms·

I don't get it, this isn't similar at all. Why did you lose faith in humanity because they did exactly what you told them they could do? > our license (MIT) W

by lugg 13y ago

I don't get it, this isn't similar at all. Why did you lose faith in humanity because they did exactly what you told them they could do? > our license (MIT) Why did you MIT your code if you didn't want this to happen? GPL exists for the exact reason you're bringing up here. Sorry I don't mean this to be negative in anyway, I just don't get the thought pattern here. Disclaimer: fan of bsd/mit/asl style licenses, feel gpl is better suited for things which need protection from the big players and enforce participation. While I can understand your pain I feel it is a necessary pain for the greater good to have unrestrictive open source. (companies can always donate/contribute in other ways after the fact etc)

jmathai 13y ago
It is similar because of how it happened. There are lots of people using the code for various reasons and many of them participate in the community or contribute patches. No one else that I know of has engaged in a conversation and then refused to reply to any further correspondence while at the same time asking questions to the community under pseudonyms. Like the OP what the other company did was probably legal. That doesn't make something okay or right. Likewise (as I admitted) this other company didn't break any laws. But that wasn't the point. You know what would have been okay? If they said, "look, we have some engineers that are going to have a go with the code - let's keep in touch" or "we are going to fork the code but will submit patches back". That is the spirit of the MIT license. Be civil. Hope that doesn't come off as negative either :).