221–230 of 673 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can exclude companies that have multi billion company in their tree.
So someone launches a new company that provides services for everyone, including billion dollar companies. Basically unless you put a non-commercial license on it, any effort to limit its use will be easily circumvented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congratulations, you've just reinvented the original BSD-4 license! It included what was called the "obnoxious advertising clause". > 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the . There's a good reason why we no longer use BSD-4 anymore. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.html > The result is a pleth…
Maybe BSD4 is a good license in this case. I'd prefer AGPL, but then AWS would probably just avoid it.
A idea is to reword and relax this license: Similar to LGPL, you can skip the acknowledgement if it's used in an unmodified form. But it doesn't really solve the problem - if the original project has been forked by the community, the exception becomes useless again. The next problem is that, it doesn't really cover all cases - in a previous incident involved Microsoft, Microsoft didn't even use a single line of the original code at all, it was just an inspiration from its framework, and the author was upset for not receiving any acknowledgement... Another idea is using AGPL's approach and targets cloud providers only, but still, it doesn't cover all the cases here.
I'm not sure whether using copyright to require acknowledgement is a good idea after all. In the academia, copyright and credit/attribution are two entirely independent process. The credit is not a legal matter, but simply a form of code of conduct and informal politeness. Perhaps promoting a code of conduct for acknowledgement in the industry regarding the use of FOSS could work better.
There are some replies in this thread that misunderstood the content of Tim Nolet's twitter post. (Probably because the short headline has pitchfork raising overtones.) - He's not complaining that Amazon forked his code with Apache license. He admits he also uses other open source with permissive licenses - He just thought it would be nice/courteous/polite/etc if Amazon acknowledge/recognized/credited/mentioned/thank…
I believe CC-BY[0] covers this. Worth noting that CC is more of a generalist license than software, though, so you may not have as fine-grained control as with BSD/GPL/MIT etc. [0] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
It seems to me it would just require mentioning it in some CREDITS.txt or whatever, which the other lincenses also do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did the legal bare minimum in terms of attribution, but you're very unlikely to find it unless you're looking for it. I don't usually read through files like ~/.config/chromium/Default/Extensions/bhdnlmmgiplmbcdmkkdfplenecpegfno/0.0.1_0/NOTICE.txt (though perhaps I should).
That’s to be expected then, the legal bare minimum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Motivate them for what, though? Fixing your license issues? Where is the bad PR? Edit: Those downvotes are not really giving me answers. Anyone care to explain the issue?
Motivate them to be mindful of the shoulders they stand on. The bad PR is that this at-a-glance anti-Amazon post is at the top of a popular tech forum.
What makes you believe they are not? Or rather, what do you think they are apparently obligated to do? What's the issue here?
> The bad PR is that this at-a-glance anti-Amazon post is at the top of a popular tech forum.
I don't see the anti-Amazon part. What I do see is a developer that either has a license issue or simply wants some attention.
Is what AWS did legal? Yes. Ethical? Meh. Rude? Yes. Against the spirit of OSS? Hell yeah. Is the author calling them out fair. Yes. Also fair, me assuming everybody defending AWS here is a terrible person.
There are some replies in this thread that misunderstood the content of Tim Nolet's twitter post. (Probably because the short headline has pitchfork raising overtones.) - He's not complaining that Amazon forked his code with Apache license. He admits he also uses other open source with permissive licenses - He just thought it would be nice/courteous/polite/etc if Amazon acknowledge/recognized/credited/mentioned/thank…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it’s a great idea but for instance the Linux kernel would have to come with documentation that mentions the tens of thousands of authors. A massive undertaking that doesn’t help anyone, really.
Linux is GPL and I doubt it would have tens of thousands of authors if it were not. It would have a dozen proprietary forks.