Quoting Thorsten Glaser (t...@mirbsd.de): > Rick Moen dixit: > > >I appreciate your speaking, Kevin. I continue to be curious about > >whether users would be expected to enter a contractual relationship with > [ any third party ] > >in order to participate. > > +1 > > This is something that occurs more and more, but a bad thing. > See also: http://mako.cc/writing/hill-free_tools.html > > Thanks for raising this point,
I appreciate your comment, Thorsten: Distinguo: Discourse's Ruby & JavaScript codebase appears to be fully open source under GNU GPLv2 and thus potentially has a future even if any of sundry bad outcomes befall sponsoring firm CDCK, Inc. (which I of course hope doesn't happen), and (like the equally monstrous and poorly performing GitLab codebase) can be self-hosted by anyone wishing to do so. Thus, at least for now, Benjamin Mako Hill's essay's mention of the BitKeeper misadventure, etc., is inapt. Discourse the codebase _is_ a free-software tool. (As an employee of VA Linux Systems / VA Software Corporation at the time SourceForge was quietly taken proprietary, I know that sponsoring for-profit corporations can and do change terms, and there is no 'free' outsourced hosting to such firms, only hosting where contractual consideration is sometimes non-monetary.) -- Cheers, "I never quarrel with a man who buys ink by the barrel." Rick Moen -- Rep. Charles B. Brownson (R-Indiana), ca. 1960 r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80) _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
