• vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    so, if a company decides to, for example, start using some MIT licensed software, does that suddenly materialize extra responsibilities for that software’s dev?

    • souperk@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      My understanding is that the company would be regulated by CRA and not the developer. However, that does not stop the company from pushing the developer for CRA compliance.

      • Rogue@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s actually pretty reasonable. I’d be happy to make my open source projects compliant for a company - but they can damn well pay me for the effort.

          • Rogue@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Indeed, that’s why I use the AGPL license. Corporations hate it because it forces them to give back.

            • logging_strict@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              it's free as in go pound sand if you aren't going to fund maintainers

              it doesn’t force them to do anything until devs refuse to work for any company that doesn’t.

              i’m with you on agplv3+. The copyright recognition document comes before the resume.