• InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m fine with the former, the latter should be “no derivatives that attempt to relicense for commercial use”.

    Saying “no forks” is as anti-OSS as you get really, short of hiding all the code under your mattress ala MSFT.

    • bitfucker@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The problem from the article is that the GPL was violated and somewhere downstream the user demanded they fix something to upstream. Being that downstream has modification without being published (my assumption on the GPL violation, either found due to inconsistent bug reproduction or other), the author is understandably upset.