Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maximal: A New Open-Source License...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
    BSD licence = you work 10 years, on a project. A company comes along picks it up, lets you starve, picks up your patches, and makes money. killing it`s developer and itself. Is that what you call open source?
    ?A privative FORK? sure, the license itself allows it. if you don't want that, you probably should p?ck another license (tool) for the job : End of The Story

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
      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.
      If that's the solution, we should all just give up now. Reforming the entire legal system to make sense? I'd bet good money mankind is colonizing other planets before that happens.

      Indeed if I were to say "open source" online, most people would understand what I mean.
      I don't know, we can't even agree in this thread.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
        Who do you think you are as an inhabitant of the democracy? Democracy means peoples rule. All you need is awareness, and you can change anything by politics.
        Oh, you're one of those people.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
          D00d you are missing the point. The code is no longer opensource. Did you even read anything I wrote?
          The code may not be open source after it has been modified but that doesn't change the fact that the BSD licence itself is still an open source licence (according to the OSI definition of "open source"). To say otherwise would mean that there must be some contention about the definition of "open source", even though your Maximal licence assumes that there isn't.

          Comment


          • #35
            If someone licences their code under a permissive licence such as BSD/MIT and similar they are fully aware that it can be brought into a proprietary project and enhanced without those enhancements being contributed back, BUT they are obviously ok with this since if they weren't they would use other licences (like GPL) which does require source code to be contributed back (if distributed that is).

            Bottom line is that there is no perfect licence, since it's all up to individuals to decide under which licence they want to publish their open source code and as always we have different preferences, which is why discussions like these are pretty much pointless and generally just end up confirming Godwin's law. It's up to the author of the code to decide under which conditions other people can use it, the rest of us can can choose to accept these terms or leave it be.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
              Yeah, one of the "do-gooders". Whom I know satan himself feels repulsion against.
              I don't think satan takes issue with your toxic attitude towards every person who replies to you.

              Comment


              • #37
                I rest my case.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
                  You have no case.
                  Oh but I do, you just missed it. Here, let me make it easy for you: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...381#post261381

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    God, Just when you think you've seen it all with Qaridarium, his little ADHD brother comes out to play...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
                      "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?

                      [..]
                      Peace.
                      You throw all that shit and you end up saying "peace"? in any case your trolling won't change the fact that if I want to release my code under the BSD license, I will, and that's because I DON'T CARE going to court or some other people making forks (privative or not) of my code ...

                      It's a tool, and i'ts the right tool for the right job ... if I picked that tool, is because it clearly accomplishes the job I wanted to do.
                      Funny thing, seems that GNU zealots thinks that no ones read the licenses (the short and full legal text) before picking one for the code ...

                      Wake up GNU hippie, no one's morally obligated to "give back"

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X