Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 81

Thread: Maximal: A New Open-Source License...

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,096

    Default

    Quote 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?
    I have a suspicion based on Michael's earlier comment that all he really intended with this post was to ignite a GPL vs BSD flamewar in his comment section, so we are now playing right into his hands.

    Anyway, yes. I would not license any project I was working on as BSD, but I would consider it an open source license if someone else used it.

  2. #32

    Default

    Imagine this ok, you have a company, with professional salesmen, who hire people to organize BSD code from around the world. Genious kids from around the world all contribute, they make a product, and sell it. They don`t even tell the kids what code they use, and they will even have to pay for the product.

  3. #33

    Default

    Thats even illegal in most places. So the satan-mascot of BSD is very suitable.

    I don`t know why these people think they need to stay loyal to a corporate entity?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
    Imagine this ok, you have a company, with professional salesmen, who hire people to organize BSD code from around the world. Genious kids from around the world all contribute, they make a product, and sell it. They don`t even tell the kids what code they use, and they will even have to pay for the product.
    You are missing the point.

    The BSD code is open source.

    Once the company takes it then it becomes proprietary.

    The fact that the code was re-licensed has no bearing on the original license.

    Anyway, I don't have time to argue about this, so I'll pre-emptively state that you've won this internet argument. Congratulations!

  5. #35

    Default

    D00d you are missing the point. The code is no longer opensource. Did you even read anything I wrote?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    This is not newsworthy.
    The idiot who wrote it knows as little about IP law as he knows about grammar and spelling.
    Who wrote this, some 10-year-old kid?
    I wouldn't expect it to stand up in court.

    If you want a good license, check out the ISC license, it is similar to the 2-clause BSD and MIT license, but even shorter due to things being striped out that were made redundant by the Berne convention.
    I agree the ISC looks unambiguous and uses legally meaningful terms.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox Uncreated View Post
    What should be so difficult to understand about open vs closed source? What country is this?
    There is no legal definition of these terms, nor is there any scientific or expert consensus. There is an array of popular definitions, none of which really have the better claim. The author should really work what his ideas mean in terms of the current legal structure of copyright as the substantial body or the text.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    I have a suspicion based on Michael's earlier comment that all he really intended with this post was to ignite a GPL vs BSD flamewar in his comment section, so we are now playing right into his hands.
    Suspicion? I'd say it was obvious flame-bait.

    As for licences, anyone can create a licence and as such there are tons of software licences out there. However unless someone actually use them to licence their code these licences won't make a lick of difference. The open source world we live in has pretty much settled on GPL/LGPL and BSD/MIT.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    316

    Default Legal or not we need something better than GPL3

    Hopefully this gets people thinking. GPL does about as much damage as good relative to open source. This is probably why there is a proliferation of open source licenses as it is. Which brings up the question of why bother with another license if so many are already available.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
    Hopefully this gets people thinking. GPL does about as much damage as good relative to open source.
    What are you yapping about? No one is forced to use GPL (or GPLv3 as your title stated), you can licence your code as GPLv2 only (Linux, Git) or use any other licence you want.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •