“Not every person or business wants to have to expose their code for every minor change or bug fix they may add, and they will sooner find a competitor with a more permissive license than adopt your software.” (MIT vs GPL debate)
what do developers think about future nostr clients as public benefit companies 🤔
https://goauthentik.io/blog/2023-08-23-my-hobby-became-my-job
It might be a good workaround for how CK rugged their OS status.
https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2018/09/10/tragedy-of-the-commons-clause/
They didnt and couldnt rug it. The open source firmware they released will always be available under that license.
They just reissued their existing code under an additional license and only release their new code with that. If you want the open source version use the older firmware.
I would never use old code that can be insecure, as they had multiple dumb vulnerabilities that they had fixed under the FOSS regime, found by foss devs that don't work for them.
I'm good,
I'd rather be involved in the FOSS economy which pays bounties, fosters collaboration, & innovates at scale without relying on lawsuits to maintain an "edge".
They definitely rugged their FOSS branded HWWs out of nowhere, & they did so for a dumb reason which they cloaked in fake marketing using misinformation to slander people working hard in the Bitcoin self custody arena.
I'll continue to debunk this dogshit, shining a light on shady businessmen who cornered me at a conference to bully me into submission....just proving my point & bolstering my position.
Fuck the corpos, copy left license only. Don't adopt the software. We'll build around you so hard you'll have to invest more money than a fortune 500 company's funding round can supply and you'll either be open source or get rekt.
But not everybody is ready to get into a fight with the sky like I am XD
I avoid GPL whenever possible because its a license poison pill. MIT all the way for open source.
