78
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
78 points (87.5% liked)
Open Source
31809 readers
497 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It's GPL, they have to also provide the source. And you benefit from all the rights they do.
"Business" licenses try to prevent competition while still benefiting from free contributions, and pass it as "fairness". But how is it fair for anybody except that particular company? What about the contributors? If OBS used such a license and reaped all the benefits would you still contribute to them?
They don't provide the source.
This is not a new thing, it's been happening for years.
Yes, I would. I'm a user, not a corporation that wants to repackage it.
If they don't obey GPL what makes you think they'd obey BSL?