Originally posted by: black_zion That would be fine if there weren't specific open source licenses. Take Android for example, yes it is open source, but it is covered by the Apache license. I'm sure you know of it, it makes several mentions of copyright, as does the GPL, which is why the GPL 3 is such a headache to Linus, and other licenses as well. Cyanogen is taking a copyrighted open source program, in this case Android, and is modifying it and releasing that product as their own, to which they will then have their own copyright to, but still have to acknowledge Google as the original source creator (or Licensor, to use Apache's term).
Dude... The reason why Linus didn't go for GPL3 on the linux kernel was the provisions it had for stripping out DRM. It wasn't about copywrites.
Companies like Redhat and Github don't stay in business by selling the software its self. That's not why the Apache license was created, but I'll play along and pretend that you actually didn't intend to use "copywrited" and "proprietary" interchangably. There's still nothing about open source software that gives someone the ability to swipe things that they wouldn't be able to otherwise.
I don't want to make it sound like it's all sunshine and puppies in open-source-land, but I think you're waaaay off the mark here.
Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and quick to anger.
Post Count: +8510
The opinions expressed above do not represent those of Advanced Micro Devices or any of their affiliates.
12:30 AM by