zlacker

>>lostms+(OP)
I know this might be unpopular with OSS idealists, but I wonder if it might be time for a new license, or indeed if there are already (small 'o') open source licenses that would help with this sort of things.

What I'm thinking of is a license almost identical to the MIT and/or Apache 2.0 license, but with a clause that prohibits mega-corps from wholesale rebranding and using your code.

I have a few OSS projects myself, and help maintain a larger one, and I love the spirit of OSS, so I'm a little split on this one. But I don't really think Microsoft's actions here are truely in the spirit of OSS. Yes, the license allows it, but is it aligned with the OSS ethos? Is it "right"?

>>Gordon+up1
Wouldn’t that be GPL?

>>nojs+Pr1
No, that puts restrictions on everyone, which are so harsh many organisations (even startups) wouldn't touch GPL'd code with a bargepole.

I was thinking more along the ideas of adding restrictions only for corporations of a certain size, or perhaps only if they intend to use it in a certain way - kind of like the licenses that exclude large cloud operators like AWS from using your work without contributing back.