Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by crpatino 2016 days ago
I'd have to disagree...

https://policies.google.com/terms

https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/terms/site.htm...

Maybe there's some code that at one point was FOSS in those products, but the products themselves are nor Free.

IMHO a code base that has been forked from a FOSS project cannot be considered FOSS itself even if they keep retrofitting changes back to the original, because you cannot know what is there in the proprietary part. This is specially true if you distribute the derivative product only in binary form.
1 comments
chrisseaton 2016 days ago
You're hell-banned, by the way.

But you're also wrong.

The trademarked Chrome distribution is built from the free Chromium, where main-line development is done. They don't dump changes over the wall like you're suggesting. That's the same for WebKit and Firefox.

link
crpatino 2016 days ago
Really, hell banned? Go figure. I assume you at least can still read me.

BSD and MIT licenses are Open Source but not Free, they are more concerned with providing a claim of ownership to the author than with the freedom of the user.

LGPL is a backdoor to let Free Software interact with non Free Software, which is a good thing too. If your product uses Free Libraries, no big deal, the more the merrier. But you cannot claim it is also Free y proxy.

link
chrisseaton 2016 days ago
> Really, hell banned? Go figure. I assume you at least can still read me.

Look at threads you've commented in in your browser's incognito mode to see how your comments are invisible (Not this one, I've vouched for you which makes them visible, and some others have been vouched for.)

Your comments have been hidden by default to all users except those that chose to view them like me since September 2017. That's why so few people reply to you. You've been talking into a void. Don't know what you did back then to piss someone off!

Crazy isn't it?

link