作者yjc1 (..........)
看板Ruby
標題Re: [連結] [Zed Shaw] Why I (A/L)GPL (又爆了…)
時間Thu Jul 16 22:50:46 2009
※ 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
1F：推 wawawa:謝謝提供!! 07/16 23:36
2F：→ Schelfaniel:no strings attched 07/17 08:33
3F：→ Schelfaniel:我感覺是使用 自由軟體 會給人商業軟體不值錢的感覺吧 07/17 08:51
4F：推 godfat:我覺得是，不願意表現出需要別人幫忙的樣子 07/17 14:43