6 ms·
If the code exists and is derived from Atom, it's MIT licensed. Being pedantic, they don't need to release it in the open for it to be open source - everyone wh
by TuringTest 12y ago
If the code exists and is derived from Atom, it's MIT licensed. Being pedantic, they don't need to release it in the open for it to be open source - everyone who has access to the code may choose to release it, but it's not mandatory.
- ssalazar 12y agoMIT is not copyleft so not even pedantry will save it. I.e. under MIT they can ship a binary blob and they only need to include the MIT license and a notice.
- TuringTest 12y agocopyleft != open source. They don't even need to publish a binary blob, they can use the code internally. Yet the original project is still considered FLOSS.
- ssalazar 12y agoI don't think that is a definition of open-source that is widely recognized or useful. If Microsoft uses MIT license software in the next version of Windows, is Windows considered open source? No.