Re: [連結] [Zed Shaw] Why I (A/L)GPL (又爆了…)

看板Ruby作者yjc1 (..........)時間16年前 (2009/07/16 22:50)推噓2(2推 0噓 2→)

留言4則, 3人參與討論串4/5 (看更多)

※ 引述《wawawa (哇哇哇○(￣﹏￣)○)》之銘言： : 看了這篇跑去 google... 找了半天才發現好像誤解了這篇的意思： : jquery color picker 不是 Zed 寫的... XD : 話說回來，我看了一下 jquery color picker 的授權，是 MIT / GPL 雙授權 : 那不管是用哪一種授權， twitter 拿去用應該沒有義務要提到用到哪些元件、 : 其作者是誰吧？當然這是一種尊重的感覺啦，不過我想說的是， MIT / GPL 應該 : 沒有規範取用的人要這樣做？當然除非你有做 "釋出程式碼" 的動作才會需要這樣 : 明確標示... 但 twitter 本身提供的是服務，我不懂這個議題上 twitter 犯了 : 什麼錯... : BTW，討論到了授權，有沒有人對 Ruby license 有研究過？我看了一下內容看不出 : 所以然... 它是類似 BSD 授權嗎？此文原串在此： http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/90ycb/why_i_algpl/c0b2w3e 引用此作者的回應：『 When I say "without credit" I mean zero. Not in the source code file, not on the website. I totally agree that a GPLd .js file does not need to 'infect' server-side code or even other JavaScript code in other files. In fact, most people don't seem to realize just how vague the GPL's virality clause is, especially when applied to scripting languages. Point is, Twitter used code illegally, were jerks about it, and then pretended the whole thing never happened. That's how large companies treat small open source developers, even when they're clearly in the wrong. If I didn't have the GPL on my side, I wouldn't have been able to do anything about it. And for the record, I clearly explained to them that I didn't think their use infringed on the GPL if they only credited it. But as soon as you actually start talking about real license obligations, the legal departments run away and get scared, and just want to drop the software altogether. That's the real reason why the commercial world wants 'no strings attached' open source. 』 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.113.23.212