First Wix took code licensed under the GNU GPL, used it to enhance their code and shipped the combined work under a license not compatible with the GNU GPL, violating the rights of copyright holder Automattic.
Now, they’ve taken code distributed under the MIT license, very permissive, and relicensed under a new license they created ad-hoc. They call the new license “The Enhanced MIT License”, which is exactly like the MIT License, with one exception:
Any distribution of this source code or any modification thereof in source code format, must be done under the Enhanced MIT license and not under any other licenses, such as GPL.
The license file is basically a political manifesto against the copyleft licenses (like the GNU GPL), where they use the derogatory adjective ‘viral’ to describe the persistent nature of the four freedoms granted by the license.
Does this EMIT license conform to the definition of open source? Maybe… but my smell test says this is a messy license. In the “Official wording” section (the part in legalese) I read:
the licensee is prohibited to change the license of the Software to any “viral” copyleft-type license
But in the FAQ above they say:
if you add/change the source code, the license must be kept as Enhanced MIT license.
which is not the same thing. Has this been reviewed by an attorney? Until it has, I wouldn’t touch this code with a 10-foot pole.
Source: Wix abandons WordPress GPL editor fork in favour of original MIT library – blocks relicensing | React, etc. Tech Stack
Feels like an innocent request from Techdirt:
Do you have examples of communities or individuals coming up with unique, creative or innovative ways to respond to hateful, abusive or trollish speech?
but I still think silence is the best response. Block and report the trolls to the authorities because engaging in any ways with them will only make things worse.
The old advice “Don’t feed the troll!” is still the best advice.
People who believe that Apache is a competitor, OSI approves licenses that permit monopolization, Red Hat is a business that’s succeeded through artificial scarcity, and open source communities with diverse agendas are “broken” are not the people you want in your new open source business.
Well said. Via Simon Phipps on http://www.infoworld.com/article/3032120/open-source-tools/vcs-who-miss-the-point-of-open-source-shouldnt-fund-it.html
The OpenStack project doesn’t have a product manager but all companies shipping products based on components developed inside the OpenStack project have product managers. Currently the managers of OpenStack-related products don’t have a way to coordinate their efforts and they constantly have to struggle with OpenStack’s upstream developers, some of them working for the same company and some would not. Rob Hirschfeld, Allison Randal and Sean Roberts called them ‘hidden influencers’: product managers definitely contribute to shape OpenStack as much as users/operators and developers and yet they don’t have a forum to talk to each other and to the rest of the community.
Dave Neary and I started talking in Hong Kong about the opportunity to start a working group for product managers and now I think the time is ripe to create one. I just proposed to create a mailing list to coordinate the first activities and I ask you to chime in. If you think that the mailing list is a good way to start giving product managers a voice in the OpenStack community, please leave your comment on gerrit. I’ll be chasing product managers to sign up to the list in the coming weeks.