3 ms·
Which version of GPL? cik was perhaps misleading when he referenced rms but then talked about 'open source' (rather than 'free software'). I note you continue
by Jedd 12y ago
Which version of GPL? cik was perhaps misleading when he referenced rms but then talked about 'open source' (rather than 'free software'). I note you continue with the phrase 'open source', to argue against rms's position (which is very much anti 'open source' both as an appellation and concept). It suggests, if you'll excuse my bluntness, that you don't quite get it.
You also seem to assume a very narrow use case of that FB source code (were it released to public scrutiny).
- bunderbunder 12y agoI used the broader category because in these kinds of situations Free Software brings nothing to the party. Free Software licensing only places restrictions on what licensees of the software can do with it. The original copyright holder, by virtue of possessing the original copyright, is not subject to those restrictions. That's why dual Free/commercial licensing is such a common choice for companies who are looking to monetize - it's an easy way to maintain commercial control over a product while still getting to call yourself "open".