|
|
|
|
|
by bad_user
2801 days ago
|
|
> Between Cygnus/Red Hat and Mozilla, I've worked for open-source-based companies for 7 years of my career, and never once heard or believed "open source" in lowercase to mean "OSI-approved." That bullshit. If that wasn't the case then Microsoft's Shared Source licenses could also be considered "open source", licenses which completely restricted commercial usage. Thankfully the world did not fall in that trap. Without a working legal definition, the term "open source" becomes (1) meaningless and (2) a legal minefield. Basically you've been spoiled by OSI approved licensing because our industry rejected anything else. We could've had a different industry and yes, all those bullshit projects on GitHub without a license are a legal minefield. |
|