Funny, how the other submission [1] sent at the same time and now having 7 votes is one of the main page, while this one with 11 votes can be seen only on the "new" page.
This video is wrong. I had a friend fall for it so searched HN.
GPL is not a contract; it’s just enforceable like one once the code is licensed. The 2017 case was about right to repair.
The executive order does not block Russian use of free software. If it somehow did break GPL, Russians would just take the free code.
As for contributions, even if the executive order blocked Russians from signing contributor agreements, it wouldn’t stop a GPL project from presumptively using submitted code. There would not even be a recourse for a Russian contributor to sue if legal relations broke down that badly.
Hopefully we’ll get clarity on what motivated the Linux situation.
Funny, how the other submission [1] sent at the same time and now having 7 votes is one of the main page, while this one with 11 votes can be seen only on the "new" page.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41933078
We all get the rotting code everywhere. This is a disaster. Who will continue to support the Linux code from the delisted maintainers?
This video is wrong. I had a friend fall for it so searched HN.
GPL is not a contract; it’s just enforceable like one once the code is licensed. The 2017 case was about right to repair.
The executive order does not block Russian use of free software. If it somehow did break GPL, Russians would just take the free code.
As for contributions, even if the executive order blocked Russians from signing contributor agreements, it wouldn’t stop a GPL project from presumptively using submitted code. There would not even be a recourse for a Russian contributor to sue if legal relations broke down that badly.
Hopefully we’ll get clarity on what motivated the Linux situation.