4 ms·

> For one, no other license, copyleft or otherwise, extends your obligations to software which is not actually a derivative work, which if nothing else requires

> For one, no other license, copyleft or otherwise, extends your obligations to software which is not actually a derivative work, which if nothing else requires a novel interpretation of the OSD. Copyfarleft[1] has been discussed for almost a decade now and has spinoffs like Copyfair[2]. > The precise semantics of how much or how little the license diverges from the requirements of open source is an interesting topic for another time. There is definitely a gray area there but the comment I originally replied to naively equated open source with the more permissive licenses. > They were allowed to do this, by the letter of the law, but it is fucked up regardless. I am not convinced that "it is fucked up". [1]: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfarleft [2]: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfair http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfair

ddevault 6y ago
>Copyfarleft[1] has been discussed for almost a decade now and has spinoffs like Copyfair[2]. But not in the context of open source. At no point have any of these licenses made a successful bid for qualification under the OSD.
- fabianhjr 6y ago
  The only criticism I would levy is that those licenses haven't been polished by time nor copyright-license-experienced lawyers. Their recognition from FSF/OSI is not their goal and and argumnt can be made that copyfarleft / copyfair pushes the boundaries of open/free/libre source software so they might not pursue recognition from the get go.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    I don't think that these licenses are relevant. If we can agree that they are not open source, then we can agree to the point I'm trying to make: changing from an open-source to a non-open-source license is a significant change which, when done without the consent of the community, is wrong.
    - fabianhjr 6y ago
      I don't agree that they are not open source, I only agreed that it is a gray area and even on the previous comment mentioned that it is "pushing the boundaries". For eg, I maintain an "awesome-copyfarleft" list: https://github.com/LibreCybernetics/awesome-copyfarleft https://github.com/LibreCybernetics/awesome-copyfarleft > changing from an open-source to a non-open-source license is a significant change which, when done without the consent of the community, is wrong. I don't think consensus is possible and even a 2/3 supermajority on a license change seems out of reach. I can imagine some are pushing for permissive licenses like MIT/BSD, others for GPL/AGPL, others to remain as Apache 2.0, etc.
      - ddevault 6y ago
        >I don't agree that they are not open source Sorry, you are simply wrong on this matter. It's not a subjective issue, it s a statement of fact that these licenses are not open source. There was a recent attempt to change this within the OSI, which badly failed. >I don't think consensus is possible and even a 2/3 supermajority on a license change seems out of reach. I can imagine some are pushing for permissive licenses like MIT/BSD, others for GPL/AGPL, others to remain as Apache 2.0, etc. Correct. That doesn't mean that they can choose to change the license anyway. That means that changing the license is not right in the first place.
        fabianhjr 6y ago
        > That doesn't mean that they can choose to change the license anyway. Under Apache 2.0 and as they did retaining the contributions as Apache 2.0 they can though. As far as I have seen there havent been any legal challenges to the licensing change on this comment section. > That means that changing the license is not right in the first place. This is a non sequitur though, the premise that precedes it (that "they can't change the license (legally or under the terms of Apache 2.0)") is false. > That doesn't mean that they can choose to change the license anyway.
        ddevault 6y ago

ddevault 6y ago

>Copyfarleft[1] has been discussed for almost a decade now and has spinoffs like Copyfair[2]. But not in the context of open source. At no point have any of these licenses made a successful bid for qualification under the OSD.

fabianhjr 6y ago
The only criticism I would levy is that those licenses haven't been polished by time nor copyright-license-experienced lawyers. Their recognition from FSF/OSI is not their goal and and argumnt can be made that copyfarleft / copyfair pushes the boundaries of open/free/libre source software so they might not pursue recognition from the get go.
- ddevault 6y ago
  I don't think that these licenses are relevant. If we can agree that they are not open source, then we can agree to the point I'm trying to make: changing from an open-source to a non-open-source license is a significant change which, when done without the consent of the community, is wrong.
  - fabianhjr 6y ago
    I don't agree that they are not open source, I only agreed that it is a gray area and even on the previous comment mentioned that it is "pushing the boundaries". For eg, I maintain an "awesome-copyfarleft" list: https://github.com/LibreCybernetics/awesome-copyfarleft https://github.com/LibreCybernetics/awesome-copyfarleft > changing from an open-source to a non-open-source license is a significant change which, when done without the consent of the community, is wrong. I don't think consensus is possible and even a 2/3 supermajority on a license change seems out of reach. I can imagine some are pushing for permissive licenses like MIT/BSD, others for GPL/AGPL, others to remain as Apache 2.0, etc.
    - ddevault 6y ago
      >I don't agree that they are not open source Sorry, you are simply wrong on this matter. It's not a subjective issue, it s a statement of fact that these licenses are not open source. There was a recent attempt to change this within the OSI, which badly failed. >I don't think consensus is possible and even a 2/3 supermajority on a license change seems out of reach. I can imagine some are pushing for permissive licenses like MIT/BSD, others for GPL/AGPL, others to remain as Apache 2.0, etc. Correct. That doesn't mean that they can choose to change the license anyway. That means that changing the license is not right in the first place.
      - fabianhjr 6y ago
        > That doesn't mean that they can choose to change the license anyway. Under Apache 2.0 and as they did retaining the contributions as Apache 2.0 they can though. As far as I have seen there havent been any legal challenges to the licensing change on this comment section. > That means that changing the license is not right in the first place. This is a non sequitur though, the premise that precedes it (that "they can't change the license (legally or under the terms of Apache 2.0)") is false. > That doesn't mean that they can choose to change the license anyway.
        ddevault 6y ago