←back to thread

275 points pabs3 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.068s | source
Show context
3np ◴[] No.45147564[source]
Building the software you rely on from source by default is one way to reduce the impact these events have on you and shift the power dynamic. If you're installing binaries/images from a vendor (free or otherwise), transitioning to a fork may be an undertaking and a sweaty risk-assessment.

Switching your existing build-infra to sync sources from a new remote should be a snap.

Also no major need to hound maintainers to ship a release or merge that neglected bugfix or feature you desperately need - just cherry-pick it.

replies(3): >>45147791 #>>45147874 #>>45148870 #
pjmlp ◴[] No.45147874[source]
Depends on the actual software licence, many commercial vendors do provide source code, however the licence doesn't allow you to do whatever you feel like with code, even if technically it is possible to do so.

This happens a lot in commercial products where scripting languages are used, for example.

Or enterprise consulting as another example, where the code is delivered as part of the project, but it is bound to the agency for compiling purposes, unless the customer pays extra for that right.

replies(3): >>45147931 #>>45148293 #>>45148606 #
1. zozbot234 ◴[] No.45148606[source]
This whole discussion is about FLOSS projects where the right to "do whatever you feel like with code" is well established - even literally so, in the case of purely private/internal changes that are not distributed to or publicly performed for any third party.
replies(1): >>45149606 #
2. pjmlp ◴[] No.45149606[source]
Apparently not, given how often people get surprised what happens to their code.

Apparently the do whatever isn't do whatever when it happens to their little bonsai project.