this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
445 points (99.1% liked)
Open Source
31188 readers
212 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For me the problem is more in GPL violation: they distribute blobs under GPL3, user made a request of the source code by creating an issue, but they ignored that request. It is not only about "you have to fix it" versus "just fork it" imo.
Licence doesn't apply to the creator.
He already owns the copyright, he doesn't need a licence, he doesn't need to adhere to the gpl
The binaries in question are various GNU and FOSS tools from elsewhere, not part of the Ventoy project itself. So no, the Ventoy author does not own the copyright of the tools in question.
Even then, he's still allowed to provide binary blobs. He doesn't have to provide it as source code. If that was the case, we'd all have to build from source and package managers like apt, dnf and flatpak wouldn't exist.
All he has to do is make the source code available, i.e. just link back to the original Github Repo.