Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu
On an open source Graal, I would be making a server that's bound to go to Classic. Somebody else would notice, and steal the systems I've made and claim them for themselves. Now, I have to spend even longer creating something better each time my entire server's systems are stolen. The stolen systems wouldn't be "crap copies", because the server where they originated from wouldn't have been released; you wouldn't ever know the difference.
|
I'd like to note that a copyleft license is supposed to fix this. If someone forks you in an attempt to replace you, you can do the same back to them since they're forced to distribute any changes they make. On a different note, aren't you just assuming that there are thugs around every corner?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu
That's not how open source works. If you thinks that's the goal of open source, you've really missed the point Richard Stallman was trying to make.
|
Richard M. Stallman isn't involved in the open source movement. You should know that he's picky about names since he believes that names matter. He's strictly active within free software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu
Most open source software is released when its finished, and the goal is that people will improve that software, not to have other people copy the software and brand it as their own.
|
Actually, that was more common in the old days of free software. The issue is discussed further in Eric S. Raymond's essay titled The Cathedral and the Bazaar. The metaphorical bazaar, where projects are released both early in their life and frequently thereafter, is common these days. The most prominent success story is our favourite kernel called Linux.