←back to thread

Libxml2's "no security embargoes" policy

(lwn.net)
276 points jwilk | 1 comments | 25 Jun 25 19:36 UTC | HN request time: 0.22s | source
Show context
kibwen ◴[25 Jun 25 22:01 UTC] No.44382195[source]▶
> Ariadne Conill, a long-time open-source contributor, observed that corporations using open source had responded with ""regulatory capture of the commons"" instead of contributing to the software they depend on.

I'm only half-joking when I say that one of the premier selling points of GPL over MIT in this day and age is that it explicitly deters these freeloading multibillion-dollar companies from depending on your software and making demands of your time.

replies(4): >>44382211 #>>44383593 #>>44385565 #>>44385638 #
xxpor ◴[25 Jun 25 22:03 UTC] No.44382211[source]▶
Why bother open sourcing if you're not interested in getting people to use it?
replies(10): >>44382234 #>>44382266 #>>44382290 #>>44382308 #>>44382317 #>>44382433 #>>44382714 #>>44382762 #>>44383194 #>>44384358 #
1. riedel ◴[26 Jun 25 05:13 UTC] No.44384358[source]▶
There is tons of reasons. E.g. public money public code. We are in research and we are open sourcing because we know that we cannot maintain anything, giving people the chance to pick up stuff without having buy stuff that is constantly losing value and becomes abandon ware very soon these days (at this point we often don't even have the resources to open source). So what you most get from us is 'public money crappy unmaintained code'