281–290 of 1001 posts
I know it isn't mainstream, but companies try to avoid those licenses as much as possible.
Tinfoil hat: sometimes I wonder if companies astroturfed support for permissive licenses. Getting the entire Rust ecosystem to avoid copyleft was a huge win, for example.
And now that copyleft Gnu tools are being replaced with permissive uutils in Ubuntu, it seems they won, whether or not they were the ones to push it.
The future continues to be AGPL https://vadosware.io/post/the-future-of-free-and-open-source...
[flagged]
The OSI considered AGPL, Open Source.
Debian considers AGPL to be compatible with Debian Free Software License Guidelines.
FreeBSD considers AGPL acceptable in its ports.
So when you say AGPL is non free, could you clarify exactly what you mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Leaving off the attribution makes it stolen. They stole credit for the code, in violation of its license.
No it doesn't. It makes it copied without authorization. Stolen means the original owner does not have access which is not the case[0]. This idea that copying is theft was propaganda invented by the MPA[1], and we ought to stop parroting it, even when it's Microsoft doing the unauthorized copying. [0] https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Wouldn%27t_Steal_a_Car
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MS would have gone nowhere near said project if it had a GPL license on it. Simply because those companies have fears of virality.
I agree that Microsoft seems identify more with parasites, but they're no strangers to symbiotic relationships with viruses. In fact they do distribute and contribute to lots of GPL software, including Linux. I can't be sure their involvement benefits anyone other than themselves, but theybdo at least participate.
systemd author is employed by Microsoft.
Depending on your views on MS and systemd, that's either a net positive or negative for the linux community.
A tactical move in both good and evil MS scenarios.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GPL does not allow binary blobs. MIT and BSD doe.
In the context of this thread (where the commenter is suggesting the author release a binary with a different license), your comment is meaningless. The author of the GPL code can release binary-only blobs released under something other than the GPL. Suggesting that the copyright holder cannot relicense their code how they want is absurd. Saying the "GPL does not allow binary blobs" implies that the author is not all…
> 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…
While working for companies, many devs have had the frustrating experience of finding a library that perfectly solves their problem, only to discover that it’s GPL3 or similar and thus strictly off limits due to company policy. Especially if repeated a few times that’s enough to inspire use of permissive licenses, to help avoid that frustration for their future selves (should they change employers) as well as other f…
If you can't use a library because it's GPLv3, then the company would need to invest some time and money into reimplementing the features they want. Guess who gets more paid work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve released some utility libraries under permissive libraries. I like it when they get used. Even when it’s part of a large company’s closed-source app. Many people don’t like that, and that’s perfectly fine, that’s why there are different choices available. What I’ll never understand is people who release their project with a permissive license and then get upset when a big company distributes their own version of…
Yeah, as far as I can gather the only thing MS did wrong here is not explicitly crediting the project they forked the code from, and I don't get the impression the author would find adding that one sentence to the docs to be adequate redress. I don't get why you would take personal offense at a big company forking your code so they can mold it to their purposes - the license allows that. Now whether that's the right…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no such difference. A company is not a person, and can literally have its entire staff changed in short order. Or be bought. Companies have no morals. Sometimes people in companies do, but again, that person can vanish instantly. You should treat a company as a person which may receive a brain transplant at any time. Most especially, when writing contracts or having any expectation of what that company will…
A sole proprietorship pretty much is a person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The k8s community is mostly people who work for commercial interests and use k8s in their companies. If you develop a component of the k8s ecosystem, and you want people to use it, you can't really exclude businesses from using it. There just aren't enough installations outside of commercial spaces for it to be relevant.
Very good point. Trying to think this through. I think community source should be accessible and usable outside the community. A community license should have a provision for paid use by corporations. If Microsoft wants to use it that is fine - if they pay. But if Microsoft wants to fork things, to me that is predatory. If I can't fork windows, why should they be able to fork community software? If they argue that pe…
That violates the first clause of the open source definition:
It probably violates 5 and 6 too.
> But if Microsoft wants to fork things, to me that is predatory. If I can't fork windows, why should they be able to fork community software? If they argue that people should pay for their products, it just seems fair to me that they should not get community products for free.
Windows is not open source software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve released some utility libraries under permissive libraries. I like it when they get used. Even when it’s part of a large company’s closed-source app. Many people don’t like that, and that’s perfectly fine, that’s why there are different choices available. What I’ll never understand is people who release their project with a permissive license and then get upset when a big company distributes their own version of…
Note that in this case Microsoft has not been following the license, as they removed the copyright notice Copyright (c) 2024 The Spegel Authors To replace it by their own. Despite the license says > The above copyright notice [...] shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
To me, licenses like MIT or BSD pretty much imply "do whatever you want with this" I know it's not exactly that but if you really care to keep some control over what others do with the code, you need a more restrictive license (and even then people are still going to copy it, especially in the LLM era).