And it feels ever more present to me that publishing things as open-source means maintenance work, which can quickly lead to burnout. People just expect you to provide updates, no matter what your license text says.
David Beazley, big in the python world and one of the OGs of the python ecosystem from back in the 90s, kinda had a moment about this a couple of years ago.
He has or had a few somewhat popular libraries and liked to write things and put them out there. But, IIRC, got fed up of the consumeristic culture that had taken over open source.
I think he put it along the lines of “The kind of open source I’m into is the ‘here’s a cool thing I made, feel free to use it however you want’ kind” … and didn’t have positive things to say about the whole “every open source author is now a brand and vendor” thing.
The result of which, IIRC, was him archiving all of his libraries on GitHub. From a distance, it also seemed like he felt burnt out from a hacking culture in which he no longer felt like he belonged.
When I read code under GPL source and write something like that under a different license, I’m legally liable for copyright infringement. Of course the original owners need to prove it first, but still there’s problems from that.
Some open source projects outright disallow you from contribution if you tell them you’re working on a closed source competitor.
When I read code under GPL source and write something like that under a different license, I’m legally liable for copyright infringement. Of course the original owners need to prove it first, but still there’s problems from that.
Neat. But if you create your own version based off what you read that’s fine. You can’t copy it, but you can learn from it.
I can read the Linux source code and use it to create my own compatible kernel.
Some open source projects outright disallow you from contribution if you tell them you’re working on a closed source competitor.
So? They can refuse submissions to their code but they couldn’t stop you from using what you see to create your own product.
David Beazley, big in the python world and one of the OGs of the python ecosystem from back in the 90s, kinda had a moment about this a couple of years ago.
He has or had a few somewhat popular libraries and liked to write things and put them out there. But, IIRC, got fed up of the consumeristic culture that had taken over open source.
I think he put it along the lines of “The kind of open source I’m into is the ‘here’s a cool thing I made, feel free to use it however you want’ kind” … and didn’t have positive things to say about the whole “every open source author is now a brand and vendor” thing.
The result of which, IIRC, was him archiving all of his libraries on GitHub. From a distance, it also seemed like he felt burnt out from a hacking culture in which he no longer felt like he belonged.
Nobody has been able to adequately explain how ai is violating any oss licenses.
You are explicitly allowed to read the source code.
When I read code under GPL source and write something like that under a different license, I’m legally liable for copyright infringement. Of course the original owners need to prove it first, but still there’s problems from that.
Some open source projects outright disallow you from contribution if you tell them you’re working on a closed source competitor.
Neat. But if you create your own version based off what you read that’s fine. You can’t copy it, but you can learn from it.
I can read the Linux source code and use it to create my own compatible kernel.
So? They can refuse submissions to their code but they couldn’t stop you from using what you see to create your own product.
Really not sure what you’re getting at here.