No, because it is impossible. Open Source works by asserting that if "intellectual property" is a valid concept, then the proponents of "intellectual property" must abide by the license, i.e. by turning the premise on its head, the licenses defend against software companies.
-
-
-
Palantir is not relying on copyright protection for their operations and profits, because they are not selling software that can be easily copied, but a service. Their whole business depends on secrecy. If they'd be found in violation of an OSS license, that would be a smaller…
- Još 2 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
An obvious and immutable fact of open source is that you have no control over who is going to use it. The only practical mitigation to this is to not open source your code at all. Apart from that, not accepting PRs/bugs/donations from the offenders is all you can do.
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
No because the very definition of OS prevents it. You could change the software license so it prevents use by certain groups but it's no longer open source, specifically item 6 of the Open Source Definition. So you can have one or the other but not both.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
It might be productive to convene lawyers, immigration advocates, and open source devs to figure out how to do this in a serious way.
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Not unless they already licensed it under terms so onerous that nobody with an open source license policy would use their code. That said, it may be possible to add transparency requirements to licenses for future projects that give some insight on how they're being used.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
-
-
Tweet je nedostupan.
- Još 3 druga odgovora
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
