作者yjc1 (..........)
看板Ruby
标题Re: [连结] [Zed Shaw] Why I (A/L)GPL (又爆了…)
时间Thu Jul 16 22:50:46 2009
※ 引述《wawawa (哇哇哇○(￣﹏￣)○)》之铭言：
: 看了这篇跑去 google... 找了半天才发现好像误解了这篇的意思：
: jquery color picker 不是 Zed 写的... XD
: 话说回来，我看了一下 jquery color picker 的授权，是 MIT / GPL 双授权
: 那不管是用哪一种授权， twitter 拿去用应该没有义务要提到用到哪些元件、
: 其作者是谁吧？ 当然这是一种尊重的感觉啦，不过我想说的是， MIT / GPL 应该
: 没有规范取用的人要这样做？ 当然除非你有做 "释出程式码" 的动作才会需要这样
: 明确标示... 但 twitter 本身提供的是服务，我不懂这个议题上 twitter 犯了
: 什麽错...
: BTW，讨论到了授权，有没有人对 Ruby license 有研究过？我看了一下内容看不出
: 所以然... 它是类似 BSD 授权吗？
此文原串在此：
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/90ycb/why_i_algpl/c0b2w3e
引用此作者的回应：
『
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.
』
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 140.113.23.212
1F：推 wawawa:谢谢提供!! 07/16 23:36
2F：→ Schelfaniel:no strings attched 07/17 08:33
3F：→ Schelfaniel:我感觉是使用 自由软体 会给人商业软体不值钱的感觉吧 07/17 08:51
4F：推 godfat:我觉得是，不愿意表现出需要别人帮忙的样子 07/17 14:43