67 ms·

Huh? You release code so that people will have to rewrite it? I really don't understand what your goal would be in releasing code at all, then.

by knorker 10d ago

LtWorf 10d ago
Did you read my comment or you just reply for the sake of it? I release the code so that people and companies that feel like contributing to the community can use it. Companies that want to take without giving back however are mildly inconvenienced by copyleft.
- ghaff 10d ago
  How? If they don't make (and distribute) changes.
  - LtWorf 10d ago
    Because they cannot distribute the software itself or use it for online services with AGPL
    - ghaff 10d ago
      Distributing (however defined by a given license) unmodified software that is presumably widely available to customers may be a requirement but is also a profoundly uninteresting legal requirement.
      - LtWorf 10d ago
        https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...
        ghaff 9d ago
        I don't think we're disagreeing about anything. I wasn't giving a legal opinion but lawyers, especially at large firms, are a lot more conservative about some matters than I might be for a personal project. If you have deep pockets and provide any path to those pockets, someone could sue you. I used to work for a very open source-friendly company and, while AGPL wasn't broadly verbotten and I can't quote any publicly available documents, its use was not encouraged in general. (And outside of Linux which was what it was, permissive licenses became much more common for new projects.)
- knorker 10d ago
  Could you please take my question at face value? > I chose to do it for free to help other people. And picking a MIT license does the opposite. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I want to help other people, then giving them the means to do what they want with no real restrictions is "the opposite" of that? > Companies that want to take without giving back So this is not about helping anyone else, but about mandating a behavior, even if that behavior is "pay it forward".

Huh? You release code so that people will have to rewrite it? I really don't understand what your goal would be in releasing code at all, then.

by knorker 10d ago

Huh? You release code so that people will have to rewrite it? I really don't understand what your goal would be in releasing code at all, then.

LtWorf 10d ago

Did you read my comment or you just reply for the sake of it? I release the code so that people and companies that feel like contributing to the community can use it. Companies that want to take without giving back however are mildly inconvenienced by copyleft.

ghaff 10d ago
How? If they don't make (and distribute) changes.
- LtWorf 10d ago
  Because they cannot distribute the software itself or use it for online services with AGPL
  - ghaff 10d ago
    Distributing (however defined by a given license) unmodified software that is presumably widely available to customers may be a requirement but is also a profoundly uninteresting legal requirement.
    - LtWorf 10d ago
      https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...
      - ghaff 9d ago
        I don't think we're disagreeing about anything. I wasn't giving a legal opinion but lawyers, especially at large firms, are a lot more conservative about some matters than I might be for a personal project. If you have deep pockets and provide any path to those pockets, someone could sue you. I used to work for a very open source-friendly company and, while AGPL wasn't broadly verbotten and I can't quote any publicly available documents, its use was not encouraged in general. (And outside of Linux which was what it was, permissive licenses became much more common for new projects.)
knorker 10d ago
Could you please take my question at face value? > I chose to do it for free to help other people. And picking a MIT license does the opposite. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I want to help other people, then giving them the means to do what they want with no real restrictions is "the opposite" of that? > Companies that want to take without giving back So this is not about helping anyone else, but about mandating a behavior, even if that behavior is "pay it forward".