"the licence allows it" ?
One talks about mine being legally weak, and this even is completely horrenduous?
About legallity, I can`t imagine a court, saying "ok, someone took your code and released it as closed source, we can`t see your licence covering this". How full of shit is it possible to get in these courts?
Then again, I am watching Breivik trial. And I am noticing a certain legal language. hopefully the language and process itself, has not become too obscure, to actually do something sensible.
I do believe it is called "law and justice". You don`t have to think a lot about that most of the time. What I am seeing, is ofcourse extreme penalty, peoples minds are already made up, we are just waiting for the "dance" to be done. I mean if the guy got shot, nobody would care. It`s a bit odd because they are doing their dance, and he is doing his, and it is almost like he is a joke, making a fool of them, as if his dance is somehow relevant, but yet we have to watch it because of the whole legal dance around it.
The worst possibly being how "they care" about Breivik. That is the legal language. But honestly do they really care about Breivik?
The licence is simple. If such a simple licence has not enough legal background, then obviously someone needs to put a really great Occhamz razor on legal structures, and put the human back in centre.
Indeed if I were to say "open source" online, most people would understand what I mean.
"opensource not going closed source" seems at the time being to be enough, to convey that idea. Soon hopefully only "opensource" should do that.