| ▲ | jacquesm 3 days ago | |
If a human did 2a or 2b we would think that a larger infraction than (1) because it shows intent to obfuscate the origins. As for your free software is dead argument: I think it is worse than that: it takes away the one payment that free software authors get: recognition. If a commercial entity can take the code, obfuscate it and pass it off as their own copyrighted work to then embrace and extend it then that is the worst possible outcome. | ||
| ▲ | martin-t 3 days ago | parent [-] | |
> shows intent to obfuscate the origins Good point. Reminds me of how if you poison one person, you go to prison, but when a company poisons thousands, it gets a fine... sometimes. > it takes away the one payment that free software authors get: recognition I keep flip-flopping on this. I did most of my open source work not caring about recognition but about the principles of GPL and later AGPL. However, I came to realize it was a mistake - people don't judge you by the work you actually do but by the work you appear to do. I have zero respect for people who do something just for the approval of others but I am aware of the necessity of making sure people know your value. One thing is certain: credit/recognition affect all open source code, user rights (e.g. to inspect and modify) affect only the subset under (A)GPL. Both are bad in their own right. | ||