SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Thursday January 18 2018, @02:27PM
from the waiting-for-the-multiverse-donor dept.
from the waiting-for-the-multiverse-donor dept.
Over at the Meshed Insights blog, Simon Phipps writes about why the public domain falls short and more detailed licensing is needed in order to extend rights to a software community.
Yes, public domain may give you the rights you need. But in an open source project, it's not enough for you to determine you personally have the rights you need. In order to function, every user and contributor of the project needs prior confidence they can use, improve and share the code, regardless of their location or the use to which they put it. That confidence also has to extend to their colleagues, customers and community as well.
Source : The Universal Donor
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Universal Donor (Open Source Licensing)
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 75 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
sillema sillema nika su
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday January 19 2018, @04:01PM
The immediate problem with that is that registration isn't free, and small players don't know if what they've got is worth anything until they show it to somebody else (i.e. a publisher). Without automatic copyright protections, there's nothing to stop that person from publishing it without paying the creator.
Of course this isn't a problem with self-publishing. And the internet has made self-publishing actually feasible for pretty much anything. But the internet has also proven that without effective curation, there's very little difference between "this book/game/app was never published" and "this book/game/app is buried in a deluge of others of wildly varying quality".
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?