4 ms·
Copyleft licenses are not necessarily "free in the broadest sense possible." They place certain restrictions on what you must do with software you publish which
by sparkie 8y ago
Copyleft licenses are not necessarily "free in the broadest sense possible." They place certain restrictions on what you must do with software you publish which contains code licensed under such licenses. There are several such copyleft licenses approved by the OSI which clearly do not fit your all-encompassing freedom definition. You also have approved license which place restrictions on use of branding and trademarks, and no effort is made by OSI to restrict licenses to those which also include a patent grant.
So if someone creates another kind of copyleft license, which is not quite the same as say, the GPL, but has the same spirit of the GPL, including a patent grant, then are they not allowed to use the term "open source" or "free software" because a protectionist organization declares itself the arbiter?
- rangerpolitic 8y agoEven if I accept your reasoning here, it still doesn't change my main point. What we have is a group of people (e.g., Lerna, etc.) trying to ride on the coattails of success of "open source" without being forthcoming about what they're doing. We could be charitable and assume they're doing so out of ignorance, but I've seen way too many discussions on this issue where it's pointed out. I simply don't think they're ignorant. I've think they're being actively dishonest.