11–20 of 59 posts
Of course nothing may happen (See autodesk animator and Executor) - both of these were open sourced over 10 years after they were popular though.
Upload the code to github.com. Use a permissive license like 2-clause BSD or MIT, or even better make it public domain. You can add compiled binaries using releases: https://github.com/blog/1547-release-your-software
Upload the code to github.com. Use a permissive license like 2-clause BSD or MIT, or even better make it public domain. You can add compiled binaries using releases: https://github.com/blog/1547-release-your-software
Warning: using a permissive license like BSD or MIT will make certain people hate you. I was a bit shocked to discover this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Warning: using a permissive license like BSD or MIT will make certain people hate you. I was a bit shocked to discover this.
Who gets mad for this reason?
Within the last couple months, there was a pretty big discussion featuring BSD licensers vs GPL licensers. If I remember correctly, the GPLers were saying that by using BSD, one enables software freedoms to be taken away, and therefore BSD and MIT licenses should be strongly opposed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who gets mad for this reason?
I apologize that my original comment was lightweight and lacking sources. If I make such a claim, I should back it up with sources. I'm about to fall asleep though, and I don't remember where precisely I saw it. Within the last couple months, there was a pretty big discussion featuring BSD licensers vs GPL licensers. If I remember correctly, the GPLers were saying that by using BSD, one enables software freedoms to b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who gets mad for this reason?
I apologize that my original comment was lightweight and lacking sources. If I make such a claim, I should back it up with sources. I'm about to fall asleep though, and I don't remember where precisely I saw it. Within the last couple months, there was a pretty big discussion featuring BSD licensers vs GPL licensers. If I remember correctly, the GPLers were saying that by using BSD, one enables software freedoms to b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who gets mad for this reason?
I apologize that my original comment was lightweight and lacking sources. If I make such a claim, I should back it up with sources. I'm about to fall asleep though, and I don't remember where precisely I saw it. Within the last couple months, there was a pretty big discussion featuring BSD licensers vs GPL licensers. If I remember correctly, the GPLers were saying that by using BSD, one enables software freedoms to b…
From a company standpoint, this makes sense if the parts are large and costed a lot to develop. Some companies eventually make these parts available eventually, some don't though - possible because open sourcing something that you initially charge for, could piss some customers off when they realize that they could have gotten it free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I apologize that my original comment was lightweight and lacking sources. If I make such a claim, I should back it up with sources. I'm about to fall asleep though, and I don't remember where precisely I saw it. Within the last couple months, there was a pretty big discussion featuring BSD licensers vs GPL licensers. If I remember correctly, the GPLers were saying that by using BSD, one enables software freedoms to b…
These "discussions" happen all the time, so I have no idea which one you're referring to, but the only reason anyone on the GPL side "gets mad" is because those on the BSD side whine childishly whenever someone puts something under the GPL.
GPL perponents always claim its about "freedom". But it's one specific type of freedom, to the exclusion of all others.