this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
31 points (97.0% liked)

Opensource

2558 readers
82 users here now

A community for discussion about open source software! Ask questions, share knowledge, share news, or post interesting stuff related to it!

CreditsIcon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Quik@infosec.pub 2 points 8 hours ago

In today's episode of What happens when you don't use the GPL

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 4 points 2 days ago

We really need a license that works out compensation for opensource projects used by companies or anyone generating revenue from it. This stuff will keep on happening at the same scale it does otherwise.

https://postopen.org/ might be one of those licences and they need funding.

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] cronenthal@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Getting f***ed by Microsoft.

[–] Xkdrxodrixkr@feddit.org 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I completely agree, but isn't this what the developer signed up for when they chose the MIT Licence? not that ms couldn't just ignore a GPL Licence, but still

[–] cronenthal@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's my takeaway even after reading the article. MIT license bad.

[–] cronenthal@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

But they didn't follow the MIT license either, at least from my understanding. And yes, GPL would have been a better choice.

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

I've heard enough other horror stories to know not to publish anything under the MIT license. Granted they are different, but what happened to BSD should be enough deterrent to not use those types of licenses.

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@infosec.pub 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Forked works better when it comes to FOSS imo.

[–] enemenemu@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago