91–100 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point I'd include some of the code as binary blobs and "pay me for the source!". In addition to GPL!
Temping, but we don't fight their crummy tactics by using the same ones.
Only open source it if it fucks big tech. E.g. bittorrent or an alternative browser. Or an app on your local machine as a SaaS alternative.
Use AGPLv3.
Not just forked. Microsoft stole the code without attribution, violating the license terms. Truly shameful behavior. Best case, it was a single engineer who was tasked with duplicating the functionality, but chose the lazier, fraudulent route and was even too lazy to clean things up entirely. Still, MS should own up, correct the record, and make this right.
Copied, not stole. It's unfortunate that the two are so often conflated.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8356...
The original researchers still have their ideas and work, it was "just" copied. Still, we call it stealing and theft.
In this case, code was taken and the credit was stolen.
The future continues to be AGPL https://vadosware.io/post/the-future-of-free-and-open-source...
> I default to using the MIT license as it is simple and permissive What's good about being "permissive"? I keep hearing this argument, but I still don't understand, what's the incentive for authors of one-man projects to choose anything "permissive". Do you enjoy your project getting forked, walled off and exploited for profit by someone who has never done you any good? AGPLv3 still allows forking, still allows maki…
> what's the incentive for authors of one-man projects to choose anything "permissive". The incentive is generally that people enjoy having their projects used, be that by commercial companies or otherwise.
That's the point!
GPL family of licenses would've made a difference in this aspect for libraries (because afair if you link to GPL code, you must be GPL). But for an app? You can use it, fork it, modify it... Just make sure you make your changes available under the same license. Seems very fair to me.
> Software released under an MIT license allows for forking and modifications, without any requirement to contribute these changes back. This sentence is true but a bit confusing, because there are no licenses that require anyone to contribute changes back upstream.
A bit. There are licenses that require people to publish their changes, though, and that is almost certainly what the poster meant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not just a megacorp. Anyone for a commercial purpose
Hmm, think we ought to judge on a case by case basis. However, for megacorp and especially banks that has almost 0 to 1% access to cost of capital, vs rest of us who at at 20 - 30 % ( for credit card, loan sharks), then there should be a different license for these people. There should be a GLP type license adjusted to the cost of the capital.
You set up your standard, and stick to it whomever comes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copied, not stole. It's unfortunate that the two are so often conflated.
Stole. When you download a movie from torrents, you don't submit it for an Oscar nomination claiming you've made it. You just copy a file to your computer intending to kill a few hours of your time while playing it back. Microsoft®™, however, not only copied the code, but claimed it's theirs.
Claiming the code as authored by themselves did not leave the original author without their code. This would not be true had they stolen it.
I initially was going to say: Failing to abide by the MIT license is copyright infringement. My advice is to contact these guys: https://softwarefreedom.org/ They likely can file a cease and desist on your behalf. However, I took a closer look at the files in question. The MIT license requires that they retain and provide copyright notices, but you never put copyright notices in your files. The only place where you a…
> but you never put copyright notices in your files. I thought having a LICENSE file in the project's root directory was sufficient. Is it not the case?
That said, file level copyright notices are not perfect (since only the VCS shows who added what lines and that might not be preserved), but it is better than nothing and it is something that is guaranteed to persist as long as people are abiding by licenses. If they are not, that is copyright infringement and the copyright holder can do things like send cease and desist notices in response to the copyright notices being removed.
Also, I must emphasize that I am not a lawyer, but one might argue that it was not willful infringement if someone removed a copyright notice from 1 file by claiming it had been a mistake. However, if they remove it from all files, then nobody is going to believe it was not willful.
> Software released under an MIT license allows for forking and modifications, without any requirement to contribute these changes back. This sentence is true but a bit confusing, because there are no licenses that require anyone to contribute changes back upstream.
The MIT license is the "easiest" license because there are no responsibility for the maintainer..