Reply to post: Re: Thought Experiment

Ubuntu 16.04 LTS arrives today complete with forbidden ZFS


Re: Thought Experiment

If I were to write an app and licence it under the Apache licence, Google could take it, add a small proprietary extension of their own that made it incompatible with mine, and release it binary-only, refusing any request for Source Code. They would still be complying with the letter of the licence, even if not the spirit.

Why would they not be complying with the spirit? Surely the reasons for using things like BSD or Apache licences is because the requirement to open source derivitives isn't a factor? If the continued open sourcing of derivitives is important then use the GPL; otherwise use one of the others.

I will accept though there have been some projects over the years that have missed this distinction; Intending to licence their project in a way that future contributions should always be fed back but picking a licence that actually allows this not to happen. WINE would be the obvious example.

But then I never quite understand why people will spend a large amount of time writing software, but seeminly little time considering how they licence it and the future implications of this decision.

There's a definate difference between open source and Open Source. One's where you get the words that make your software, the other's a movement. (Three part harmony entirely optional).

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019