127
submitted 8 months ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago

I mean anybody can fork it and keep developing it without a CLA under AGPL3.

[-] wiki_me@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 months ago

Yeah it's easy to fall into a negativity bias instead of doing a risk benefit analysis , the company could be investing money and resources that could be missing from open source projects, especially professional work by non programmers (e.g. UX researchers) which is something that open source projects usually miss.

You could probably figure it out by going over the contributions.

[-] independantiste@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago

Of course, I am not against software being open-source, and I much prefer this approach of companies making their software open-source, but it's the CLA that really bothers me. I like companies contributing to the FOSS ecosystem, what I don't like is companies trying to benefit from free contributions and companies having the possibility to change the license of the code from those contributors

this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
127 points (90.4% liked)

Open Source

31223 readers
238 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS