[License-discuss] Companies that encourage license violations
chris at ochsnet.com
Wed Aug 26 17:54:56 UTC 2015
I know they are open source because the authors have a website or github
repo with the open source license. They just aren't including that
license in the copy that they release through this company.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Kevin Fleming <kevin+osi at kpfleming.us>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Chris Ochs <chris at ochsnet.com> wrote:
>> Some of these addons are themselves open source. The majority of the
>> time the authors of these are not including the open source license. Which
>> I think is legally ok, I'm guessing it actually just creates a dual
>> license, but not an attorney so not sure on this.
> Some of these addons are themselves open source. The majority of the time
> the authors of these are not including the open source license. Which I
> think is legally ok, I'm guessing it actually just creates a dual license,
> but not an attorney so not sure on this.
> How do you know they are 'open source' if they don't include an open
> source license? Are the completely original works, or do they contain works
> from others that are distributed under open source licenses?
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss