Interesting read. I think the biggest take home point is the Napster analogy: if you think changing a license is the solution to your problem, you’re failing to see the business opportunity/customer needs you’re not currently addressing. Prosecuting would be customers for music theft when what they really wanted was a digital music store was very highly stupid in retrospect.
The article linked to this from OSI: https://opensource.org/osd
IANAL, but I I don’t like OSI definitions. CC share and share alike & AGPL wouldn’t be open source by their definitions. I fail to see why placing software in to the public domain is insufficient. As a hobbyist programmer, having access to the source code is a huge deal to me. But I’m not starting a business venture and I understand that for society to improve, we need profit motives somewhere. Heck, last I looked, there was a ton of Next Step code in iOS.
Have you ever read the GNU manifesto?
I don’t think so. But I like stallman.
Building computing devices for short term needs is very different from building something that will improve humanity for generations. I’d argue non-FOSS licensing defines a project as short term (see windows 3.1 and windows 95, for example).
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
