3 ms·
Based on how he's acted in the past, I think even Stallman would've advocated something like the MIT or BSD license for something like this -- having a patent-u
by cwyers 11y ago
Based on how he's acted in the past, I think even Stallman would've advocated something like the MIT or BSD license for something like this -- having a patent-unencumbered alternative to formats like JPEG 2000 being used seems to be more important to a lot of Free Software people. In other words, the advantage of having widely-used file formats that are accessible to free software programs are considered greater than the benefits of having software become libre in order to use GPL'd file format libraries. Stallman defended the use of a non-copyleft license for Ogg/Vorbis on those grounds:
https://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3 https://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3
- Aldo_MX 11y ago> even Stallman would've advocated something like the MIT or BSD license for something like this Almost, Stallman (well, the FSF) advocates Apache 2: Some libraries implement free standards that are competing against restricted standards, such as Ogg Vorbis (which competes against MP3 audio) and WebM (which competes against MPEG-4 video). For these projects, widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software, and does more good than a copyleft on the project's code would do. In these special situations, we recommend the Apache License 2.0. Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html