4 ms·

I think Linus Torvald said something like: "he don't want to waste time with licences" Something I can very much agree with. However, I very much not agree on

I think Linus Torvald said something like: "he don't want to waste time with licences" Something I can very much agree with. However, I very much not agree on the article, nor its headline. But I also do not fully agree on the FSF definition of Free Software, either. I think it is very important, to keep terms simple. So that also a nonexpert - and non-native english speaker can understand what it means. Because I am also a non native speaker, but so is most of the world. And most of the world conflates free with gratis. But I am pretty sure, many english native speakers do so, too. Definitely most websites use the term "wrong", too, with "join for free" etc. Trying to insist on those nunaces, I would consider a uphill battle on a muddy ground and not worth my energy. I would just go with the commonly accepted term. So free as in not having to pay for it. Now, that definition alone, would include all the spyware infected freeware from the appstores and co - and this is what people actually expect for free. They get more ads and other limitations instead. They don't know or care, that the source is usually closed. So including the Open-Source in the definition is important. So Free Open Source Software - FOSS. Sounds good and simple and is pretty much the established term and I would normally use that acronym. FOSS is also easy to spell and to remember. But .... there is the copyleft. And I am not a great fan on copyleft. So I should use Free Libre Open Source Software? - FLOSS https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html Well, sorry, but that term sounds clumsy. But the FSF named it before me. So I am not trying to change their definition here. I am just saying - I think at its current stage it just helps maintaining the confusion. The discussion here is a good example of it. Now, but as a programmer, I have to say, the highest degree of freedom with another piece of software I would have with no licence at all - when the code is in the public domain. Because then I can really do what I want with it. Running it as long and where I want it. Change, modify and yes - if I decide to - even not share my changes with others and just charge for the binary I created. I am not doing the last part, though. But I am really considering publishing my long year pet project directly into the public domain, to avoid most of this.

wrycoder 6y ago
FOSS software gives other people maximum flexibility to use your software. FLOSS gives everyone maximum freedom to use, distribute, and modify your software. Including you. For example, under FOSS, someone can take your software, maybe add some nice features, wrap it up in a shiny package, and sell it as proprietary, closed source software. You would have to buy a copy to even run the new features, and you would not be licensed to change it. I think you should use the GPL. “public domain” is an ambiguous license, which is generally not considered to be free.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  "“public domain” is an ambiguous license, which is generally not considered to be free. " Thats where I disagree. First Public domain means no licence as far as I understand it. And if I can do whatever I want with it - then this means really freedom to me. So it sounds absurd to me, if this is not considered "free". And yeah, I know about copyleft. But I don't think you can achieve true freedom when it is mandatory. Thats kind of opposite.
  - wrycoder 6y ago
    As I understand it, “Public domain” is problematic in the courts outside the US. Stallman has discussed this. GPL keeps you from being locked out of your own software. If you don’t care about that, and/or you believe in the goodness of man, then use a FOSS license.
    - hutzlibu 6y ago
      "“Public domain” is problematic in the courts outside the US. Stallman has discussed this" Can you link to that? Or do you know, what the problem could be? edit: What I find there sounds actually different and more align with what I like. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html "Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license. Public domain material is compatible with the GNU GPL." ... "GPL keeps you from being locked out of your own software." But this is not true. If I will release my software into the public domain, then I will allways be able to use my software in this version and continue to work on it. I maybe won't be able to benefit from other peoples work with my software, if they choose to be selfish - true. But this is something different.
      - hutzlibu 6y ago
        But in the recommended CC0 licence it says something different. "If you want to release your non-software work to the public domain, we recommend you use CC0. For works of software it is not recommended, as CC0 has a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses. Because of this lack of patent grant, we encourage you to be careful about using software under this license; you should first consider whether the licensor might want to sue you for patent infringement. If the developer is refusing users patent licenses, the program is in effect a trap for users and users should avoid the program." The issue is apparently patent sueing. Sigh.

wrycoder 6y ago

FOSS software gives other people maximum flexibility to use your software. FLOSS gives everyone maximum freedom to use, distribute, and modify your software. Including you. For example, under FOSS, someone can take your software, maybe add some nice features, wrap it up in a shiny package, and sell it as proprietary, closed source software. You would have to buy a copy to even run the new features, and you would not be licensed to change it. I think you should use the GPL. “public domain” is an ambiguous license, which is generally not considered to be free.

hutzlibu 6y ago
"“public domain” is an ambiguous license, which is generally not considered to be free. " Thats where I disagree. First Public domain means no licence as far as I understand it. And if I can do whatever I want with it - then this means really freedom to me. So it sounds absurd to me, if this is not considered "free". And yeah, I know about copyleft. But I don't think you can achieve true freedom when it is mandatory. Thats kind of opposite.
- wrycoder 6y ago
  As I understand it, “Public domain” is problematic in the courts outside the US. Stallman has discussed this. GPL keeps you from being locked out of your own software. If you don’t care about that, and/or you believe in the goodness of man, then use a FOSS license.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    "“Public domain” is problematic in the courts outside the US. Stallman has discussed this" Can you link to that? Or do you know, what the problem could be? edit: What I find there sounds actually different and more align with what I like. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html "Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license. Public domain material is compatible with the GNU GPL." ... "GPL keeps you from being locked out of your own software." But this is not true. If I will release my software into the public domain, then I will allways be able to use my software in this version and continue to work on it. I maybe won't be able to benefit from other peoples work with my software, if they choose to be selfish - true. But this is something different.
    - hutzlibu 6y ago
      But in the recommended CC0 licence it says something different. "If you want to release your non-software work to the public domain, we recommend you use CC0. For works of software it is not recommended, as CC0 has a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses. Because of this lack of patent grant, we encourage you to be careful about using software under this license; you should first consider whether the licensor might want to sue you for patent infringement. If the developer is refusing users patent licenses, the program is in effect a trap for users and users should avoid the program." The issue is apparently patent sueing. Sigh.