A FSF supported project needs help: mediagoblin
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
I am a member!
If you have a little extra spending money consider a contribution to the following project. I donated $50 USD. Can you match or beat that? The goal is to raise $60,000 to fund development for a year:
http://mediagoblin.org/pages/campaign.html
From the FSF:
Who hasn't gotten excited about a new Internet service, only to
discover that it falls short on free software values?
The Web is full of services for posting, sharing and commenting on
media, but most of them require you to run nonfree software or share
your data with third parties on their terms. It seems like these
problems are just getting worse, with more and more of our media and
personal information hoarded in the hard drives of a few giant
corporations, and previous uses of nonfree Flash being replaced with
nonfree JavaScript. Determined to find a better way, FSF member Chris
Webber started the GNU MediaGoblin project. He's leading a community
team to write a next-generation social web system where users will
share their experiences through photos, videos and audio, all without
running proprietary software or centralizing personal data in the
hands of a corporation.
Right now MediaGoblin is partially developed, but the team needs
financial support so that they can quit their day jobs for a year and
perfect MediaGoblin's features to a professional level. The FSF
believes their project is important to the future of the Internet and
free software, so we're partnering with them to launch a crowdfunding
campaign, complete with creative prizes for donors (give $350, and
Chris will make you a 3D-print of Gavroche the goblin, the project's
cute mascot).
Can you help us out by spreading the word about MediaGoblin, and,
ideally, pitching in some cash? You can donate here:
Nice idea :D I would like to contribute but I only have 1,09$ on Paypal, and since the minimum is 2$ I will have to wait a little bit :S...
It is good to see this, really ! At the opposite as we see in non-free software projects, there is a really solidarity and everyone helps everyone in order to promote good ideas and good projects (even the FSF gives a hosting for free for free software if I'm not wrong) :D
Did the FSF donate any money to this project or are they just using their name to promote themselves and the GNU? It reminds me of McDonald's having donation bins for some cause next to the cash registers asking people to donate. Clearly McDonald's has money to donate to the causes but would rather not because they are selfish. They want people at the register to add money to their profit margin and not worry about putting some of that back in some charity if they don't have to.
Pretty nice setup ey?
I think so or at least there providing support. You can find out. It's
probably on there mailing list.
On 12/10/12 22:24, name at domain wrote:
> Did the FSF donate any money to this project or are they just using
> their name to promote themselves and the GNU? It reminds me of
> McDonald's having donation bins for some cause next to the cash
> registers asking people to donate. Clearly McDonald's has money to
> donate to the causes but would rather not because they are selfish. They
> want people at the register to add money to their profit margin and not
> worry about putting some of that back in some charity if they don't have
> to.
>
> Pretty nice setup ey?
Yea. GNU Media Goblin means they are a officially part of the GNU project.
On 12/10/12 22:27, Alexander Stephen Thomas Ross wrote:
> I think so or at least there providing support. You can find out. It's
> probably on there mailing list.
>
> On 12/10/12 22:24, name at domain wrote:
>> Did the FSF donate any money to this project or are they just using
>> their name to promote themselves and the GNU? It reminds me of
>> McDonald's having donation bins for some cause next to the cash
>> registers asking people to donate. Clearly McDonald's has money to
>> donate to the causes but would rather not because they are selfish. They
>> want people at the register to add money to their profit margin and not
>> worry about putting some of that back in some charity if they don't have
>> to.
>>
>> Pretty nice setup ey?
I am a member!
Trisquel is independent of the FSF just like ThinkPenguin is independent of Trisquel. On the other hand there are relationships between FSF, Trisquel, ThinkPenguin, and other projects/companies. Even Ubuntu, a distribution with non-free enables Trisquel.
Trisquel does comply with FSF guidelines on free software and does offer some assistance to the project. For instance one of the mirrors which hosts Trisquel is run by the FSF. I don't believe the FSF offers any financial assistance to the Trisquel project though. It is not a FSF operation.
To say that the FSF though is not at least partly enabling Trisquel's existence though would be false. The FSF Foundation Latin America for instance maintains Linux-libre. There are also many others. Even a company like Atheros is enabling Trisquel's existence by releasing code. Where other companies only release drivers Atheros has worked with us and others to enable support under free distribution.
There is a lot of interaction between projects, companies, and organizations like the FSF although most are run independently of each other. There is even a legal organization independent of the FSF geared toward free software issues. The FSF is probably the largest supporter of the various projects at this time. They have raised the most money for strictly free software projects of any organization that I'm aware of. A number of these projects are directly under FSF control.
One last thing. The GNU project is independent of the FSF.
The problem with Media Goblin is that due to it having a GPL license (AGPL v3), it may not get the adoption it needs on a bigger scale with being used by big organizations in addition to a community. Apache 2.0 would have been a better option.
You know there is no explanation. Just FUD.
I am a member!
Yes, while I'm sure your right about his intentions there are different free software licenses and the FSF does recommend different ones. The one he mentions is the Apache 2 license and it is compatible with AGPL v3. Of course that doesn't mean he is right although without more info...
I don't take my own advise half the time about ignoring him.
I feel like I'm repeating myself, but a more permissive license allows everyone to contribute. You say there is the worry that it gets too big and a company will fork and make a proprietary version. The reality is that its too much work to maintain a.fork of that size and they will rather contribute back to the main. If you want the widest adoption, why limit them in what they can do?
Y'all get so defensive about this but these are FSF approved licenses and I'm not advocating obscure ones that aren't used.
I agree with you on this one. We need to spread the Free Software Word around the World, but we can't force people, so we might just play "their games", and because of this, we need to be a little bit permissive with the license of some components (but not going outside of the Free Software sphere), in order for anyone to use/contribute/work with and help the software itself so it can be improved.
PS: Even if I mostly agree, I have to say that, it is not because the FSF approved a license that this one could be good. Example the CDDL license from SUN/Oracle is approved by the FSF as a Free Software License, but I personally wouldn't use it.
Will consider it a feature that AGPL does not allow slavers and hoarders
to contribute and use it for my future projects. Who else does it not
allow to contribute?
There are big companies maintaining forks or rewriting whole projects to
avoid the GPL version 3. Making their work harder while not hindering
cooperating users seems a more worthy goal than widest adoption in such
a case.
Have you also seen what MediaGoblin aims for? AGPL seems perfect for a
service useful on many servers which might be controlled by the users.
pah I'll see about that. My biz in one sentence is a decent digital
video distributor. bye bye netflik, *rents, Amazon,etc. :) need to have
something to show. I am currently planing to use media goblin if it gets
bigger ought.
On 12/10/12 23:43, name at domain wrote:
> The problem with Media Goblin is that due to it having a GPL license
> (AGPL v3), it may not get the adoption it needs on a bigger scale with
> being used by big organizations in addition to a community. Apache 2.0
> would have been a more wise option.
I (mostly) understand the idea of a Game Maker to use BSD or MIT license for the libraries that will be used for the creation of the game letting all the rest be GPLv3 (for example), giving the choice for uses to choose the license they want for their final product (even if this allows someone to create non-free software). But how can this "be bad" for this website (created to compete with Youtube, Daylimotion etc...) to use an AGPLv3 license ?
On the final of the day people don't care about anything other than the usage itself, the only peoples that could care about the license would be any developer or any producer like VEVO that won't be able to add those dirty non-free DRM's that block users to see some videos (but I can be wrong on this one).
For libraries, the GNU LGPL allows their use in proprietary software (but the improvements to the library itself can only be distributed under the terms of the same license). Now, someone who considers proprietary software as unethical will choose the GPL for her library unless its features are already available in an equivalent proprietary library (in which case, the proprietary software will still be created using the proprietary library).
As the permissive/copylefted debate, it was very recently discussed in this forum... i.e, the last time t3g highjacked a thread (but trolls never get tired of FUD... that is even a way to recognize them). And, yes, you are right:
- the "simple users" do not care about this debate: in both cases they can use/distribute the software as they wish.
- The only difference is whether other developers are allowed take the work and integrate it in proprietary software. In the case of games, those unethical developers can, for instance, correct some bugs (so that users feel attracted to the result) and add some malware (spyware/backdoor/etc.). Another consequence is that the original free game may lose audience. Who wants that? The unethical developers only.
Thank you for the answer.
I Didn't remembered about LGPL to be honest.
But the original content could still loose this audience even being GPL'ed at 100%, it is a matter of what is done by the "forker", or am I wrong :S ?
I also saw in section 5 of the Elance contract at https://www.elance.com/p/legal/services-agreement-between-client-and-contractor.pdf that they forbid you not use GPL code as a contractor working with a client. They don't want to be held liable for copyleft code that could force the client to release code and potentially sue both the contractor and Elance.
I never saw that O_o... :
Background Technology.
Contractor will disclose any Background Technology which Contractor proposes to use or incorporate in connection with performance of its services to Client. If Contractor discloses no Background Technology, Contractor warrants that it will not use Background Technology or incorporate it into Work Product provided pursuant thereto. Notwithstanding the foregoing, unless otherwise agreed in the Job Terms, Contractor agrees that it will not incorporate into Work Product or otherwise deliver to Client any software code licensed under the GNU GPL, GNU LGPL, or any other license that by its terms requires, or conditions the use or distribution of such code on, the disclosure, licensing, or distribution of the Work Product or any source code owned or licensed by the Client.
I am a member!
This actually makes sense. The GNU project doesn't accept contributions without the assignment of copyright either. That's essentially is all this is saying. This may not always be in the companies best interest although there are good reasons to have such clauses.
2nd thing to point out is it sounds to me that they aren't actually prohibiting to the use or incorporation of GPL licensed code. They are requiring disclosure of such use / incorporation.
> The GNU project doesn't accept
> contributions without the assignment of copyright either.
Many (most?) GNU packages accept contributions without copyright
assignment (GNOME, MediaGoblin and Recutils are some that I can name).
There are projects requiring explicitly stating that the change is
appropriately licensed, most assume that all patches are unless
explicitly incompatible. The GNU packages that use copyright assignment
rarely accept unassigned code.
I am a member!
I might be thinking of the wrong project/organization then. In any case I know one of them does. I thought it was GNU although maybe it was FSF, GNOME, or one of the others. one of them does require copyright assignment for everything. At least that is provided my memory serves me right.
No, I believe you are right: the GNU project used to require copyright assignment. However, the GNU project is so large that it now is more of a federation of mainly independent sub-projects.
I think the lesson is to be very careful in using GPL software and how comfortable they are in the license. I can see a small project not being an issue, but if you do contract work for a big company to make $$$ and attract big clients in the future as a contractor, stick with the permissive licenses.
I know it used to be dual licensed, but there is a reason why libraries like jQuery stick with a MIT license. They know the library is one of the most popular and don't want the developers that use it to have legal issues. Same goes with the popular Modernizr and YUI libraries.
The lesson learnt from what?! From watching the Linux kernel (under the GPL license) thrive? Or maybe LibreOffice (under the LGPL)? Or maybe by watching BSD software be plundered by Apple? Sure it is popular... and it subjugates its users. You are talking about jQuery. Let us talk about accDC then. It is based on jQuery and proprietary (with Microsoft awarding prizes to it). As for Modernizr, the full version weights 42 kB uncompressed (and including the comments). I guess that, according to you, this characterizes as a "small project" and could (should?) use the GPL.
When people ask "how can I make money off of GPL software" the response usually lies with the option of making custom software for a client or still trying to sell it even though the program is offered for free and the source code is made available according to the rules of the GPL.
So if a developer and/or independent contractor wants to make custom software for people, it is assumed they may may an existing popular library to aid them in the development. So when that user goes to a job site like Elance, they find out that the contract doesn't want them to use code under a certain license (like the GPL) and they look for options because they want to get paid for their specialized services.
The lesson "learned" is that there is ideology and reality. In an ideal situation from your point of view, you want everything to be GPL so everyone lives in this utopia and be peaceful and love everything and share everything attitude. The reality is that some money has to be made in order to survive and every developer and client is different. If that client is worried that work you may do can compromise their business (like releasing changes due to GPL), they will not use you or sue you if you go with a GPL license and the viral nature of the code makes them release EVERYTHING under that license.
I realize that you will never understand that point of view and you are one sided in supporting another. There will also be arguments like this as long as people like yourself have an issue of someone looking to make money from being a software developer and you are pissed because it is proprietary and you can't use their code for your own personal benefit.
P.S. It is not just contract work that is cautious about the GPL. Even government organizations: http://bit.ly/QnIHnq (sorry about using Bitly, but this forum doesn't handle underscores).
From page 2, section DEFINITION
9. License must not contaminate other software;
> P.S. It is not just contract work that is cautious about the GPL. Even
> government organizations: http://bit.ly/QnIHnq (sorry about using
> Bitly, but this forum doesn't handle underscores).
>
> From page 2, section DEFINITION
> 9. License must not contaminate other software;
Thanks for encouraging me to read the Open Source Definition again. Why
not cite Debian from which this rule originally comes from? I recommend
reading the last paragraph of Section 2 of the GPL2 and the last
paragraph of Section 5 of the GPL3, they implement this idea.
You're talking about people making free software nonfree like it's a good thing. Apparently you forgot about the whole purpose of copyleft: to give free software an advantage and discourage the development of nonfree software by making it more complicated (they have to start from scratch, whereas it's going to be much easier to develop the same program as free software).
Or, maybe you're just trolling.
For the nth time (but, as I wrote, trolls never get tired of FUD... that is even a way to recognize them). :
- The most frequent answer to "how can I make money off of GPL software" is "support" what includes (but is not restricted to) custom developments. Those are, indeed, *very* common (most of the code that is written). As you write: "every client is different". The problem in your sentence is that you see the proprietary software developers as the clients (and you want to help them by making people distribute their work under permissive licenses). The clients are the users. I guess nobody here (but you) wants more and more fancy proprietary applications.
- The *reality* is many people make a living from free software; in fact, support for free software is, today, among the most thriving segment of IT. In French, there even is a specific name for such companies: Société de services en logiciels libres.
- The *ideology* is that users deserve freedoms. Most people in this forum (but you) consider that developing proprietary software (derived or not from permissively licensed software) is unethical because it is, by definition, at the expense of the users' freedoms.
- The copyleft only requires the users to have access to the source code (in the case of custom software: *one* user).
- As far as I know, everybody here is all for software developers making money in an ethical way (i.e., with free software). You do not seem to care about the ethical part of the sentence.
- Obviously *you* are pissed because copylefted software does not allow you to use the code for your own personal benefit (money by user subjugation). That is funny how you try to reverse things.
В 01:12 +0200 на 15.10.2012 (пн), name at domain написа:
> I know it used to be dual licensed, but there is a reason why libraries like
> jQuery stick with a MIT license. They know the library is one of the most
> popular and don't want the developers that use it to have legal issues.
You are implying that using GPL code leads to legal issues. That is not
true. The real issue in such cases is that the developers do not know
the license requirements and/or do not inform the
contractor/client/partner that they are using such code beforehand.
This comes from the misconception that free and open source software is
just code you can use however you want; it is code just waiting for you
to take it and claim it yours. Well it is not. Yes, you are free to use
it, but there is one condition - you should respect the license of the
code you are using.
So, please stop saying GPL is bad and leads to trouble for developers
and people who are using it. The goal of free software (I'm concisely
missing open source) is not mass-hysterical adoption, it is freedom for
its users - users, developers or business, it does not matter. Yes some
licenses give you the freedom to make proprietary software with them and
might seem better, but the requirement of copyleft licenses to release
your changes is better for the longer term.
If all free and open source software was released under permissive
license, there is a great possibility that proprietary versions with new
features will emerge, which will cause the free software version to lack
functionality. That on its turn will lead to more adoption of the
proprietary clones. The free software version will fall behind in
functionality and adoption and will became useless. And viola there is
no free software no more. Everybody looses.
In fact this is exactly what already happen during the Lisp era and just
before Stalman decided to start the GNU project, if I remember
correctly. Thanks to permissive licenses.
Just ask how *BSDs are doing.
В 21:10 +0200 на 15.10.2012 (пн), name at domain написа:
> Just ask how *BSDs are doing.
How? No, seriously I don't get the exact meaning of your comment.
Please, elaborate. Thanks.
Last time I heard they are not doing so good. GNU/Linux has been all the rage at least 12 years or more.
Let me cite one of my sources: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/project-management/legal-considerations-when-using-free-software-in-it-consulting-projects/1363
Some of you think I pull most of this out of my behind, but I do research before these posts. I also try to get sources from a non GNU or FSF site once in a while to get a 3rd party perspective on those licenses.
I am a member!
Your taking things out of context. I don't know if you are completely failing at reading comprehension or just being selective of what you want hear.
If you are developing custom software for a company and utilizing GPL code the company you've distributed the code and program to is under no obligation to release the changes. It's only the distribution of the program which would mandate its release. As a contractor you couldn't give them just the binary though unless you included a written statement offering the code as well *technically*. That's about it.
If you distribute the code to company A and modified/improved a GPL licensed program then you are obligated to offer the code to company A. If company B comes along and demands the source code you are not under any obligation to give it to them.
I generally skim over the replies and stop when people like Banana use words like "FUD" or "troll" because it means their perspective is leaning towards name calling and rarely constructive insight into the issue at hand. In the rare times when he cities his sources, it is usually on a FSF site and the opinion is slanted towards the political agendas of the Free Software Foundation.
I tend to see things from a bigger picture and a viewpoint that is cumulative of how others in the software industry think and produce code on a day to day basis. I know there is disagreement, but what else do people have around here when Trisquel 6 is teetering on vaporware?
This is largely a free software community. The open source guys who care more about function than ethics are using distros like Ubuntu and Linux Mint. You should know this.
You should also know that we free software supporters *don't want* proprietary software developers to develop proprietary software. Because we don't like proprietary software. If the business that develops nonfree software can't work, that's a good thing. If businesses that deal in free software have an advantage over businesses that deal in nonfree software, that's also good.
There is *no reason* that a copyleft license that is actually going to be effective at giving free software an advantage over nonfree software is ever going to be opposed by most people here. The only reason we would ever be opposed to using a strong copyleft license like the GNU AGPL is for strategic reasons.
"Copyfree" supporters might agree with you, and maybe some "copyfree" supporters use this system, I don't know. I tend to think they would be more supportive of systems like FreeBSD than ones that use Linux, the copylefted kernel, though.
My thoughts are more with libraries being permissive and able to be used with any software regardless if free or not. Recently in Firefox 15 and above, there was a native HTML5 PDF reader integrated (PDF.js) that was under a permissive license meaning it doesn't conflict with the Mozilla licenses. Also opens the door for Chrome and maybe IE and Safari.
With that in mind, I always wanted WebODF from http://webodf.org/ be integrated so browsers get native OpenDocument viewing in addition to PDF. They are both ISO standards, so why not? The main issue may be that no one has really asked for it, but it is also under a AGPLv3 license. If that was under a more liberal license, would the progress have been sped up?
Did you just ignore everything I said?
PDF.js is an excellent example of a feature that all proprietary Web browsers have for free. In this way, their developers can focus on other features that are missing from free Web browsers (Mozilla developers were busy working on the feature that ended up in proprietary software). Proprietary Web browsers therefore have a technical advantages and users lose some convenience by switching to freedom. How wonderful (or not) is it?
If this library was licensed under the same trio of licenses as Firefox (MPL 1.1, GNU GPL v3 or GNU LGPL v3; all of them implementing some kind of copyleft), all free Web browsers (that I am aware of) but w3m (which is usually used inside Emacs that is already able of PDF display) could profit from it without any alteration of their licenses. On the contrary, proprietary browsers would need to work to implement a similar feature or assume the lack of it (i.e., lose market share). I really do not know why the Apache 2 license was chosen (it would make sense if PDF was not a commonly used standard but it is). I regret this choice.
В 19:12 +0200 на 16.10.2012 (вт), name at domain написа:
> My thoughts are more with libraries being permissive and able to be used with
> any software regardless if free or not.
From the Free Software movement point of view, why? Why should we care
if it is allowed to be used with proprietary software? We are not in the
early stages of spreading the word about Free Software. This is not
significant anymore.
> The main issue may be that no one
> has really asked for it, but it is also under a AFGPLv3 license. If that was
> under a more liberal license, would the progress have been sped up?
You are (again) implying that copyleft licenses are non-free. What else
if not FUD is that? The AGPL is liberal. You can do whatever you want
with the code, as long as you comply with the license - release your
changes. Maybe it is not liberal in you eyes because you want monopoly
and control over users? Do you admit this is all about?
Well if that is what you want start from scratch, don't use fee and open
source software in your code, do you proprietary shit and struggle doing
it! But, you want to "help" yourself while working for clients and
contractors. The poor developer, who has to feed himself and wants to
use the work of others, but not to share what he modified in the *work
of others*. To have "advantage".
People here care about *free software*, about freedom, not open source,
not mass-hysterical adoption (to repeat myself) on every cost. You
should be perfectly aware that the community here is such. Why do you
make such an effort to try to convince us that our way is not convenient
for the masses and it would be better another way???? Especially when
the free software community is not so mainstream and we as a community
by ourselves go against the mainstream and try to show to people that
our viewpoint, as radical it might seem at first glance, is better for
society and everyone can benefit from it.
I just don't get it. Why do you waste your energy here? Do you seriously
believe that you will change our minds?
You never ever answer to the free software arguments. You just keep on writing the same bullshit backing it, sometimes, with articles by people that do not care at all about freedom (their only objective is "maximize the ROI of proprietary software companies")... not to mention those that do not even understand the basics of licensing (like your last reference). I am sorry to tell it again but you are the definition of a troll. Do you want a reference? Here it is:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Do you want an excerpt of your writing that exemplifies this definition? You can take 90% of your posts. Most recently (i.e., you last sentence):
Trisquel 6 is teetering on vaporware.
As for the extraneous/off-topic aspect, this thread is a perfect example too since you started talking about licensing in this message even if the original topic has nothing to do with licensing.
Please, do not waste your time on a distribution that "is teetering on vaporware" (from your point of view, which is erroneous). Go away.
It feels like I'm repeating myself over and over again because you make the same responses over and over again. From looking at your background, you come from the academic field and I understand your paychecks come every week or two weeks guaranteed due to students taking your class. Are you also a developer who has created software or are you just a cheerleader?
What response do you expect?
We don't like nonfree software. We don't think it should exist. That's why we use a completely free distro, Trisquel, and not other distros like Ubuntu or Linux Mint or even Fedora.
Knowing this, how do you expect to convince anyone here that a decision is good because it allows nonfree software to take advantage of free software (and, in this case, make the free software nonfree)?
The only way we would support a more permissive license is if it would be a good strategic decision, i.e. strongly copylefting the software would not help software freedom (or would even be detrimental), such as when a free library is just a replacement for an already existing nonfree library (with no practical advantages). You have not even claimed that that is the case with MediaGoblin, at least not directly, much less provided arguments to support this position.
It is true that you you are repeating yourself. Something else that is true is that you never answer the points we make. We talk "freedom to users". You always answer "money to developers" (even at the expense of the users' freedoms). I start to wonder if you only are an extreme troll or if you just lack some mental abilities. Let me tell it again: free software is *not* about developers. It is about users. It is about giving the users a control over *their* computing (free software) vs. developers exercising an illegitimate control over this computation (proprietary software). Just read the free software definition over and over and you will realize it at some point (I hope).
And no, that does not mean people cannot make a living by developing free software. Many do (mainly through support). Actually, more and more do. You just ignore this reality. You can even read whole books on business models around free software. This document, for instance, is rather short and, contrary to more theoretical material, it relies on some real-life examples of businesses: a panel of 45 actors of free software, 10 of them having a turnover exceeding 1 million euros (since you are so interested in "big money").
Anyway, to answer your question: I am a software developer too. All my code is distributed under the GPLv3. Like most university professor in computer science, I do research. It is part of what I am paid for. So, in a sense, I partly make a living by developing free software.
I'll be blunt with you in saying that the rights of the developer and user should both be respected and not just the user. It is true that GPL code forces contribution of source code and can benefit the developer if that is their angle. No one should be forced by a license written by an organization that needs that license to be used so they are relevant and willingly donate.
The big argument arose when I said there may be preference for a permissive license over copyleft. Both are considered acceptable in the Free Software world and it is true that the GPL limits the way code is linked.
I also understand your fears that using a non copyleft license may give outside sources the right to take code and use with proprietary software. While there are small instances of this, most contributors would put their resources into an establish project and not maintain a fork that requires monitoring and merging of code from original project.
In summary, don't hate on the permissive licenses because they allow complete freedom in code. There may be corporate interests with those licenses, but the majority are under the free software and open source umbrella.
- It is *not* true that GPL code forces contribution of source code. It is a freedom. Not an obligation. Has anybody ever come to you and say "you use the Linux kernel under the GPL license, you are forced to contribute to its development"?
- You keep on talking about "donations". Again: the vast majority of the money related to free software is support (including custom developments). In comparison, donations are nothing.
- Nobody here "hates" permissively-licensed software. It respects our freedoms and we all use it within Trisquel.
- What we "hate" is proprietary software. *The* difference between permissively-licensed software and copylefted software is that the former allows proprietary derivatives, whereas the latter does not.
- Even if it would be uncommon to see permissively-licensed code end up in proprietary software, it does not make it good. Copyleft prevents it.
- I am not sure what you refer to when you talk about "the rights of the developer". Based on what you wrote, I believe you mean "the right to take the work of free software developers and integrate it in proprietary software". In other words, "the right to subjugate users with less development effort". I doubt anybody here (but you) would call that a legitimate right.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios