3 ms·
You're forgetting to mention that open source != free software. I have no problem with the license itself, because it maintains the four freedoms. So from a fr
by jonathanstrange 8y ago
You're forgetting to mention that open source != free software.
I have no problem with the license itself, because it maintains the four freedoms. So from a free software perspective it's fine, and that's the spirit of GPL. However, if I was a business owner, I would never run software under that license because it may create unforeseeable license conflicts. As far as I can see (correct me if I'm wrong), any software running on the SaS stack would have to be compatible with GPL, and there are plenty of open source licenses that you might want to or need to use that are incompatible with GPL. For example, it seems that strictly speaking only fully FSF approved GNU/Linux distributions are compatible with that license.[1]
Or maybe I'm misinterpreting the license requirements? (IANAL)
[1] https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- bad_user 8y agoI'm pretty sure that the new license does not "maintain the four freedoms". I don't know if the FSF will approve of this new license, however by the Free Software definition it should be even more damning, first of all because it violates Freedom 0. The corresponding rule in OSI's definition is less strict ;-) The "spirit of the GPL" has nothing to do with this license. The GPL is just a "copyright license", meaning that it's concerned only with distribution and with derived works, where distribution and "derived works" are defined by the copyright law. The GPL is in fact very business friendly and that was by design.
- jonathanstrange 8y agoI think you're right and I was wrong. It does violate freedom 0 and probably will not be approved for that reason by FSF.