pull down to refresh

92 sats \ 3 replies \ @OriginalSize 26 Oct \ parent \ on: Openwashing tech
This is why you only contribute to copy left licensed projects.
Permissive licenses like MIT and BSD enable a company to fork the work of a community into a setting where well funded teams can quickly leave volunteers in the dust.
write
preview
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln OP 26 Oct
All open-source licenses must allow distribution in some way - meaning anyone who receives open-source software can inspect and/or alter the code. Copyleft licenses differ in that they require the same rights (the rights to inspect or modify the code) to all works that use the attached piece of code.
Had to look that one up. Yes, copyleft seems quite meaningful...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 26 Oct
Yes, they allow for distribution but do not require the improvements be distributed. That is what makes OS so vulnerable.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 26 Oct
Yes, I understand that they Hoover up all of the work of the open-source community and then never give anything back to the community, keep the improvements hidden and take the profits. I have been using Linux for quite a while now and see what happens to things like Fedora and etc.
reply