4 ms·
The point would be to enforce the openness of changes to the source. If you go in and add some things, change the design etc. and pass it off as your own, someo
by MoOmer 12y ago
The point would be to enforce the openness of changes to the source. If you go in and add some things, change the design etc. and pass it off as your own, someone can take the changes you've made and do the same. Not only that, but you're required, not just encouraged, to make public any changes, which may or may not be improvements.
- WorldWideWayne 12y agoAdding and changing things does not necessarily precipitate passing off the work as one's own. I could be wrong, but I don't think there's a big problem with that with the truly free licenses like MIT...so I'm wondering - what's the point? Node.js has been super popular for the past few years and it's built from mostly MIT style licenses. It's so hot that Microsoft has made a big effort to make it usable and provide tools to work with it on Windows. Nobody that I know of has come along and taken this product, re-branded it and then pawned it as their own creation. I understand that the point of the Affero license is to prevent "Tivoization" of a product, but it seems to come at the cost of not being able to attract a large base of developers to contribute to the project, since everyone would rather be working with more liberal licenses.
- duaneb 12y agoSo if I'm trying to use this in my proprietary product, I can either a) use it and open up all my code, or b) use a better-licensed, MIT/BSD/APSL2-compatible code. I also might point out, as a person working on a proprietary service, it's in our interest to contribute upstream. Who wants to maintain compatibility patches? It's in EVERYONE's best interest to have solid, open infrastructure used by everyone (yes, even evil closed companies like google)