4 ms·
You should read the licenses again. It's not $free, and if a corporation distributes a derived work (in any form, source, binary, firmware), then it has to pro
by informatimago 11y ago
You should read the licenses again. It's not $free, and if a corporation distributes a derived work (in any form, source, binary, firmware), then it has to provide the sources and their modifications, and their derived works along, depending on the license, and some other requirements (such as mention of copyright, etc). When you buy a hardware box, often you don't get the sources of the firmware containing the GPL linux kernel in it! That's clear violation of the license terms.
- shoo 11y agoYour point is valid but you are perhaps overgeneralising: there are more FOSS licenses than the GPL, and there are many examples where it is perfectly legal to use FOSS software commercially without contributing anything back or providing source.
- atinoda-kestrel 11y agoFOSS != GPL. I've written plenty of stuff under the BSD license which has been distributed with and without modifications in tons of commercial products, rarely with source. Totally fine, and exactly as I intended.