Hacker News Reader

>> Put aside the complaints about Google and DRM, and the main gist of this article is arguing that the "patch" for Open Source is to get rid of forking.

Well, that kind of is the "open" part of "open source". If you are free to redistribute code, it implies that you are free to fork. I wonder why the author doesn't push for more restrictive licensing models (like GPL) instead?

View on HN

The ironic part is that the one of the reasons this article was written in the first place was because the author tried to build a product off of Chromium and couldn't -- because modern Chrome relies on proprietary DRM modules that can't be forked.

And the takeaway they took away from that was, "authors should have more control over what other people do with their code."?

Hi, more restrictive licences like GPL tend to slow projects development and the code remain fully open-source, hence, any corporate can fork. Developers would need substancial resources to protect and enforce against the likes of the GAFA. We do not prone a full closed-source model, of course not, but rather the possibility to have a mix of public and open innovation within the same project.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com