• Wimopy@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    171
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Ok, I might be misunderstanding here, but since committing changes is allowed for everyone, doesn’t this mean fixing bugs is something you could do? You’d just be stuck with all the other rights as well until someone else makes a change.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      4 months ago

      the fact that there are this many people having different interpretations shows that the license would need waaaaaay clearer wording to hold any sort of water.

      this is why i hate licenses like WTFPL and its ilk, just saying “do whatever” cannot possibly be legally viable and thus using anything with such a license is impossible by anyone who cares about copyright law (such as say, companies).

      If you want your creations to be free for all to use, just slap a fat CC0 on it.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah, the problem with the proposition is that you have all rights and access to the code regardless of who made the last commit, unless the last person to commit revoked the HPL.

      • MNByChoice@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        The last person cannot revoke the right to make commits.

        I have no idea what that implies about the right to change the license.