uuuguaii

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by uuuguaii 4y ago

   > Yeah on the one hand, isn't opening your source all about not really minding what happens to it after that? No! That's a gross misrepresentation of what open sourcing is. It's the offer of a deal. You publish the source
2. 2.▲
   by uuuguaii 4y ago

   Issue is that many large corporations use FLOSS internally with heavy extensions/modifications and never give back to the community. They don't have to, since all users are in-housr, and those tend to have access to the source cod
3. 3.▲
   by uuuguaii 4y ago

   The problems are attribution and licensing. Not use.
4. 4.▲
   by uuuguaii 4y ago

   That's very generous of you. Don't get angry though if I go ahead and re-publish all your code with your name replaced by mine. That's exactly what you are allowing me to do with such a license.
5. 5.▲
   by uuuguaii 4y ago

   > I'm not aware of any Open Source license,or Free license for that matter,that has a give-back clause. Source code is available to -users- ,not prior-authors. In essence, copyleft licenses are exactly that. They oblige the author o