Comment by yongjik
5 years ago
An argument could be made both ways, but I wish people stopped quoting licenses to resolve social issues.
For example, the license does not forbid the user of the software from INSINUATING THAT THE AUTHOR OF THE SOFTWARE IS INCOMPETENT, OR UNFIT TO AUTHOR ANY SOFTWARE, EITHER IN A PARTICULAR LANGUAGE OF THEIR CHOICE, OR IN GENERAL. So one can almost say that anyone who's doing it is exercising their right granted by license.
...But that kind of argument is not really helpful, isn't it? The question is whether some behavior is socially acceptable. License doesn't enter the question.
(BTW, of course I don't support the kind of behavior I endorsed(?) above.)
> ...But that kind of argument is not really helpful, isn't it? The question is whether some behavior is socially acceptable. License doesn't enter the question.
> (BTW, of course I don't support the kind of behavior I endorsed(?) above.)
Let's say someone wants to release some open source software to the world. But they also want to retain the right to remove their currently published copy at any point, their right to reject patches and generally do what they like without being slurred and berated by everyone else.
Aside from adding a plaintext file alongside the code that explicitly says (sometimes in capital letters!) that the code is supplied with no warranty or obligation, explicitly or implied, what should they do?
Isn't it clearly the case that the license explicitly states the social contract?