7 ms·

Would you say they should go as far as appending license that would prevent companies from using their software if they have a history of hostility towards them

by pavs 8y ago

Would you say they should go as far as appending license that would prevent companies from using their software if they have a history of hostility towards them? Or only when it comes to receiving donations?

craftyguy 8y ago
> appending license that would prevent companies from using their software No, that would defeat the purpose of FLOSS entirely. They should aggressively defend FLOSS licenses, which would include prosecuting some of their current members. If they allow members to take, for example, the Linux kernel, modify it, and not redistribute modifications to customers (as required by the GPL), then what exactly is the LF doing other than collecting membership dues from literally anyone that can afford it, and using funds to help members promote their 'we love open source' initiatives/marketing campaigns?
- giancarlostoro 8y ago
  > and not redistribute modifications to customers (as required by the GPL) Upon request the code should be made available, specifically if it's been modified and you are running the software. But yeah they should be at least open towards customers about it (those who have a right to said source, but also they can redistribute it legally under the GPL license terms).
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    The point is, at least two of the 'platinum members' of the Linux Foundation have publicly violated this. And yet, there they are.
fabianhjr 8y ago
GPL and other libre licenses have termination clauses. Eg, > 8. Termination. > You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11). > However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation. > Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice. > Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10.

by pavs 8y ago

craftyguy 8y ago

> appending license that would prevent companies from using their software No, that would defeat the purpose of FLOSS entirely. They should aggressively defend FLOSS licenses, which would include prosecuting some of their current members. If they allow members to take, for example, the Linux kernel, modify it, and not redistribute modifications to customers (as required by the GPL), then what exactly is the LF doing other than collecting membership dues from literally anyone that can afford it, and using funds to help members promote their 'we love open source' initiatives/marketing campaigns?

giancarlostoro 8y ago
> and not redistribute modifications to customers (as required by the GPL) Upon request the code should be made available, specifically if it's been modified and you are running the software. But yeah they should be at least open towards customers about it (those who have a right to said source, but also they can redistribute it legally under the GPL license terms).
- craftyguy 8y ago
  The point is, at least two of the 'platinum members' of the Linux Foundation have publicly violated this. And yet, there they are.

fabianhjr 8y ago

GPL and other libre licenses have termination clauses. Eg, > 8. Termination. > You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11). > However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation. > Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice. > Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10.