Being open source doesn’t mean it’ll get stolen lol.
People can copy the code, but unless they add anything significant, everyone will keep using the most famous one. Plus there are several licenses which can add restrictions regarding ‘look, contribute, but don’t copy without permission’
Vulnerabilities would be discovered much quickly, and people will even contribute to it. He’ll still have the right to sell his app on the Play Store… or keep a premium type plan like he already has.
You’d have to ask the developer, but it seems like they did not understand the license they released it under. They complained of people “plagiarizing” their source code after releasing it under the MIT license, which allows people to take the source and use it however they want.
Or he doesn’t want his work stolen???
Being open source doesn’t mean it’ll get stolen lol. People can copy the code, but unless they add anything significant, everyone will keep using the most famous one. Plus there are several licenses which can add restrictions regarding ‘look, contribute, but don’t copy without permission’ Vulnerabilities would be discovered much quickly, and people will even contribute to it. He’ll still have the right to sell his app on the Play Store… or keep a premium type plan like he already has.
I think for one person and one person only, the premium option is the way to go, but that’s just my opinion.
You can release your source code without making it freely available for people to use. Not every open source app is GPL licensed.
then why did the Paint.NET developer go from Open to closed?
You’d have to ask the developer, but it seems like they did not understand the license they released it under. They complained of people “plagiarizing” their source code after releasing it under the MIT license, which allows people to take the source and use it however they want.