• terabyterex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    either i am confused or the people are behind this are confused. they want uk to be the home of open source so they eill create a government body to control it. do they not understand open source? it doesnt belong to anyone.

    • Tempy@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      It does belong to someone, the people who wrote/contributed to it. And they chose to share their work in a way that allows you to use it on (almost) anyway you like.

      • terabyterex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        mo, it doesnt belong to them. thats the point. its free as in free speech. i can fork ot and do what i want. now some locenses say you have to keep your fork open source but you can add any code changes you want. they original writers have no say.

        • Tempy@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          You can fork it, but that’s because they published the code under a license that allowed you to do that. I think you’ll find the copyright is still theirs. Legally, they own their work. Contract law says that if they offer it under a license that’s non-revokable, they can’t take that away from you. But they could relicense it so future changes come under different terms. They can even multi license it, so some people get one set of terms. The open source ones. and others get a more set of terms suitable for making money off it when being used by others (Assuming all contributors agree, if it’s a multi contributor project, though a single contributor could do that with just their patches but that’d be a pain).

          It’s the reason, in projects where the contributors don’t sign over their copyrights over to the maintainer, that you have to get everyone’s agreement to switch license (or remove code that was contributed by someone who didn’t agree). Because each contributor owns their code and gets to choose the license it’s distributed under.

    • Senal@programming.dev
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 days ago

      Sounds like they want the governing bodies for certain open source technologies to be picked up by the UK.

      They’d use the term govern rather than control id imagine, though thats a fine line and not a distinction the UK has been good at observing historically.

    • bitfucker@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      To be fair, having multiple country that has open source governing body would help to have a redundant in case one country goes mental

  • Senal@programming.dev
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    9 days ago

    Thats a fucking terrible title, even though its technically accurate.

    Read the article, it’s actually pretty interesting.