351–360 of 509 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This can't possibly be true, since the Linux kernel's code is GPL and approximately every tech company uses Linux.
By "use GPL code" I mean integrate it into a company codebase (which would require the codebase to be licensed as GPL). Edited my original comment to clarify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why the scare quotes, the first freedom of both Open Source and Free Software is the right to run the software for any purpose . It's not some little unimportant detail. It's arguably the most important property of Open Source.
I argue that the natural winner-take-all dynamics of the marketplace are not beneficial to the the mission of free and open source software. In fact, having no safeguard against large organisations making money this way is actually hugely detrimental to the mission by enabling these companies to ensnare unsuspecting users in a web of both their own proprietary software as well as all that free and open source softwar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As far as I understand it, the stance of the 'Open Source' crowd is that if Amazon can't make it one of their AWS offerings then it isn't true open source Isn't this what the AGPL is for? That's an OSI approved "open source" license that places restrictions on people making the software accessible as a network service.
I think the problem that these folks have is that AGPL still allows other people to host the software. They want to seem altruistic but want to also be the only provider. GPL would have been a better initial license, and AGPL would have been the next logical step to ensure that changes that hosted services make can come back to the original version. I'm not entirely sure what they were hoping to get by making an extr…
Some people pick the AGPL because the license itself acts like garlic to commons destroying IP vampires and are disappointed that those vampires still found a way to drink their IP milkshake.
Has nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with not wanting to be taken advantage of for free labor and IP by powerful entities that would deny them a glass of water if they were dying from thirst.
open source is charity. I believe in it, I contribute to it, but I recognize it is unlikely to lead to a sustainable livelihood
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By "use GPL code" I mean integrate it into a company codebase (which would require the codebase to be licensed as GPL). Edited my original comment to clarify.
Phones contain Linux, TVs contain Linux, cars contain Linux, clouds contain Linux. It is used everywhere.
Just using Linux is not enough to say anything built with it is a combined product in the eyes of the GPL, the license is pretty specific about what it considers a derivative work.
For example, you can ship closed source apps and OS on top of Linux so long as you respect the license.
I’d like to see a “no jerks” license. It’d be MIT by default, but call out specific bad actors as being disallowed from using the software. That way your average corporate user wouldn’t need to consult a lawyer before adopting
It will be as useless in terms of enforcement as "shall be used for good, not evil." https://www.json.org/license.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with GPL was "tainting." It was never clear in what cases you could use GPL without it dragging all your code into being freely available. LGPL was supposed to help with that; AGPL made it even worse. The lawyers were terribly confused and recommended you just not use anything with "GPL" in the license. The reason why MIT/BSD licenses flourished is that they were easy to understand. As long as you didn't…
GPL also gets incredibly ambiguous when it's applied to anything that isn't software written in a language like C for a personal computer. (What does "linking" even mean with respect to a Javascript library, for instance?)
So I think it would cover pretty much any JS library usage, except maybe if you just drop in a widget and don’t interact with it in any way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with GPL was "tainting." It was never clear in what cases you could use GPL without it dragging all your code into being freely available. LGPL was supposed to help with that; AGPL made it even worse. The lawyers were terribly confused and recommended you just not use anything with "GPL" in the license. The reason why MIT/BSD licenses flourished is that they were easy to understand. As long as you didn't…
GPL also gets incredibly ambiguous when it's applied to anything that isn't software written in a language like C for a personal computer. (What does "linking" even mean with respect to a Javascript library, for instance?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your project gets adopted by Big Tech then your market rate as an engineer just went way up. It’s a huge badge of honor and a rare accomplishment. You’re thinking too directly if you can’t imagine how having your OSS project adopted by Big Tech isn’t a career boost.
Maybe it can happen, but ask the people maintaining open source projects long term, how much it helped them pass silly leetcode interviews, which companies insist must be done, even if you have a golden track record.