3 ms·
Isn't this a problem with overly permissive licences used in most OSS? AFAIK there is nothing stopping any commercial entity to just resell you OSS as-is (in ca
by m_mueller 11y ago
Isn't this a problem with overly permissive licences used in most OSS? AFAIK there is nothing stopping any commercial entity to just resell you OSS as-is (in case of GPL they just have to link to sources as well). There's also nothing stopping them from putting ad- and malware in, correct? IMO it might be a good idea to put some limits into OSS licences - even if most projects wouldn't have the means for litigation, at least it would give pause to some legal departments of such companies trying to abuse OSS. I'd also advocate to have a standard license similar to creative commons for non-commercial use. Why not adding some semi-enforced sponsorship element into OSS projects that are heavily used commercially?
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y agoThe problem isn't the bundling of malware per se. It's SourceForge hijacking the site.
- carussell 11y agoThis is true of any software that's freely redistributable. There's nothing particular to FOSS that enables what's going on in this case. (In theory, the source allows them to change it at the source-level and bake the badware in, but SourceForge doesn't seem to be doing that.)