WantClue's avatar
WantClue wantclue@nostr.fan 9 months ago
Why is it that people think modifying the software of the #bitaxe and claiming they did a rework, so they don’t need to open source it? What on earth do you not understand about GPLv3 ? (do what you want with it but if you modify it you need to open source it) This benefits the community among miners. We at #osmu do not hold back we try to lead the way. #bitcoin needs to be open source and this is not just heartbreaking but also sad to see how many people are lurking on money. I got a clear message for you. GO FUCK YOURSELF @npub1ql2z...rxya @npub1wtgd...sxp2

Replies (8)

Zardoz's avatar
Zardoz zardoz@orriss.org 9 months ago
I’m not a huge fan of GPLv3 because it co-opted the name of the hugely popular GPLv2…. and IMHO it’s not a similar or evolution of that license… That said. The GPLv3 it’s pretty damn straightforward in its own right. If you change it, your changes have to also be open sourced and on GPLv3. Pretty damn simple.
Shawn's avatar
Shawn 9 months ago
This is the correct answer. You don’t HAVE to open source it, but if you even email a copy of the code to one other person (outside your organization if your company owns the copyright) then the GPL applies.
1 replies ↓
Shawn's avatar
Shawn 9 months ago
Wrong. Only if you distribute the code at all. If you keep it on your own hardware (or on your company’s hardware) and never give it to anyone, you don’t have to open source it.
Awiteb's avatar
Awiteb _@4rs.nl 9 months ago
If that's true, have you ever wondered why AGPL exists? The only change is that it considers the use of the software over the network as distribution (such as an API or web interface).
Sjors Provoost's avatar
Sjors Provoost sjors@sprovoost.nl 9 months ago
Why would anyone want to run a closed source Bitcoin miner, especially when an equivalent open source option is available? Unless you don't mind potentially not getting paid if you actually find a block :-)
1 replies ↓
↑