An Open Letter to Intel

Re:An Open Letter to Intel by burntsushi on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @08:55AM (#15643332)

> IMHO if he has a problem with the way things worked out, he should have chosen a different license.

This is a classic conflation of legalese and ethics/decorum/professional courtesy. Just because something is legal doesn't make it good, and just because something is good doesn't make it legal.

For example, I abhor those who take credit for other peoples' work. But I use a license on software I write that permits folks to do just that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An Open Letter to Intel by foodstances on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @11:14AM (#15644590)

What license allows one to take credit for another's work?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An Open Letter to Intel by Spivak on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @11:25AM (#15644694)

Any license without required attribution like "The Unlicense" .

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An Open Letter to Intel by dionidium on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @04:35PM (#15647878)

That's an extreme reading. If I make a library, don't require attribution, and then you use it in your project without attribution, that's emphatically not the same thing as "taking credit" for my work.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An Open Letter to Intel by vortico on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @12:42PM (#15645577)

CC0 is another one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An Open Letter to Intel by SAI_Peregrinus on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @11:28AM (#15644720)

The WTFPL for one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An Open Letter to Intel by vorotato on Tuesday November 07, 2017 @02:22PM (#15646592)

Sure but polite is often not profitable. Instead make your licenses line up with your wishes. It's another way of saying, "Hey you didn't say you needed it".

[ Parent | on HN ]