21–30 of 673 posts
> Not necessary as per the APLv2 license The conversation ends there, doesn't it?
He just wanted some attention. And he got it.
Why choose to publish open source if you then complain about people using your code? If he didn't want that, he should've used a non-commercial clause I assume he personally thanked all of the technologies that he's used as well?
If you don't like the terms of the license for software you released maybe you should have chosen a different one.
There's surely a space between "perfectly acceptable" and "illegal"? I don't like this idea that you have no right to complain about something if you haven't specifically banned it in a legally enforceable license.
If attribution is needed, put it in the license.
cheers Tim it's mine now
However. He has every right to point out that they are using his code. And I think it would be at least polite to mention that, and it is in my opinion impolite not to mention it.
And actually a little misleading when they don't mention using an open source system that is similar.
And it's not like the fact that he didn't say that in his license means he is not allowed to mention he made that software.
So I think better late than never, put the requirements you want in the license for credit. Or go AGPL or whatever. Although obviously that's not retroactive on the previous version.
This also proves that someone thinks it's a business. So I feel like there might be an opportunity to launch a competitor, with a main advantage that they have the actual talent that created the system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's surely a space between "perfectly acceptable" and "illegal"? I don't like this idea that you have no right to complain about something if you haven't specifically banned it in a legally enforceable license.
For big companies, there's no distinction between "morally acceptable" and "legal". Stick to a license where what's immoral to you is made illegal.
We should certainly also update legislation to force them to do things ethically, but it's not always possible to cover every possible case and thus our society depends on at least some level of corporate ethics.
Does anyone know where the source code is hosted? If they forked that project, doesn't it need to be made public?
Specially license tailored against every one of them, by name?
> Not necessary as per the APLv2 license The conversation ends there, doesn't it?
Not really. The conversation goes on as long as we like. Part of OSS is about trust and reputation. AWS could have really helped the maintainer with a single sentence and they didn't. It's like not saying thanks to the barista when you get your coffee. Not the end of the world, but it's still a touch rude.
Maybe the developers would like to say thanks to barista but lawyers said to the developers to not talk to the barista no matter what since it's safer to say nothing than risk saying something wrong.