Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sofixa 826 days ago
> Apparently marketing people who want to sell stuff under those new licenses think "source available" is uncool.

It's not that it's uncool, it's just not true and reflective of reality. There's a world of difference between a .zip on an FTP ("source available because GPL says it must be") and everything still happening in public on GitHub and everyone still being able to contribute if they want to. Both are technically "source available".
1 comments
orthoxerox 825 days ago
And yet a .zip on an FTP might be GPL-compliant whereas a GitHub repo isn't necessarily.
link
sofixa 825 days ago
Exactly! But it's objectively a shit way of sharing code, there is no contributions possible, etc.
link
orthoxerox 825 days ago
GPL or any OSS license doesn't require you to accept contributions. Your users are free to do anything with it except distribute derviative software under a different license, but you, the author, don't owe them anything except buildable and runnable (since v3) source code.
link