4 ms·

FOSS software gives other people maximum flexibility to use your software. FLOSS gives everyone maximum freedom to use, distribute, and modify your software. I

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
      If the FSF says public domain is a free license, then I'm mistaken. I remember years ago that there was discussion of difficulties in copyright caused by "public domain" licensing. You can rely on the FSF, they are experts on licensing. Yes, you will always be able to use what you wrote. But, let's say some corporation takes it up, makes some significant improvements, and builds a billion dollar corporation on it: you would have no access to the improved version, and you would not share in the rewards. "Embrace, extend, extinguish." But, if you use the GPL, the corporation can come to you and negotiate a proprietary license that would be dual with the GPL version. So the GPL protects your rights, should you need to exercise them. It protects you from abuse.
      - hutzlibu 6y ago
        "If the FSF says public domain is a free license, then I'm mistaken. " They clearly say it is not a free license, but compatible to them. " Public domain material is compatible with the GNU GPL" But they are not clear further on, when they recommend the CC0 over public domain: "If you're working on a project that doesn't have formal contribution policies like that, CC0 is a good tool that anyone can use. " " For works of software it is not recommended, as CC0 has a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses." So anyone can use it, but not recommended for software projects. Because of something with patents. ... so at some point I need to figure out, if there is some caveat, if this would be an issue to me. I think not. "But, if you use the GPL, the corporation can come to you and negotiate a proprietary license" Or ... the corporation does not come to you, but still benefits, because they are either out of your reach in china, use your code in secret and keep their people shut up with NDA's - or, if they play by the rules - just reimplement your work in a way, they can incorporate into their corporate culture. (Algorithms are sometimes more valuable, than the implementation). Which is not too hard, if you have boring, but steady teams of reasonable skilled software developers and the source code at hand. Then they have something they control fully. In other words. I rather avoid that scenario alltogether. If enough people see value in my work, they will support me, as a thank you and/or for further updates. And those who see the value, but are too selfish or constrained in their ways - I rather have them also use it, than something else. I won't loose in that scenario. But I don't see any win with restricting it. We will see, how it works out for me.

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
    If the FSF says public domain is a free license, then I'm mistaken. I remember years ago that there was discussion of difficulties in copyright caused by "public domain" licensing. You can rely on the FSF, they are experts on licensing. Yes, you will always be able to use what you wrote. But, let's say some corporation takes it up, makes some significant improvements, and builds a billion dollar corporation on it: you would have no access to the improved version, and you would not share in the rewards. "Embrace, extend, extinguish." But, if you use the GPL, the corporation can come to you and negotiate a proprietary license that would be dual with the GPL version. So the GPL protects your rights, should you need to exercise them. It protects you from abuse.
    - hutzlibu 6y ago
      "If the FSF says public domain is a free license, then I'm mistaken. " They clearly say it is not a free license, but compatible to them. " Public domain material is compatible with the GNU GPL" But they are not clear further on, when they recommend the CC0 over public domain: "If you're working on a project that doesn't have formal contribution policies like that, CC0 is a good tool that anyone can use. " " For works of software it is not recommended, as CC0 has a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses." So anyone can use it, but not recommended for software projects. Because of something with patents. ... so at some point I need to figure out, if there is some caveat, if this would be an issue to me. I think not. "But, if you use the GPL, the corporation can come to you and negotiate a proprietary license" Or ... the corporation does not come to you, but still benefits, because they are either out of your reach in china, use your code in secret and keep their people shut up with NDA's - or, if they play by the rules - just reimplement your work in a way, they can incorporate into their corporate culture. (Algorithms are sometimes more valuable, than the implementation). Which is not too hard, if you have boring, but steady teams of reasonable skilled software developers and the source code at hand. Then they have something they control fully. In other words. I rather avoid that scenario alltogether. If enough people see value in my work, they will support me, as a thank you and/or for further updates. And those who see the value, but are too selfish or constrained in their ways - I rather have them also use it, than something else. I won't loose in that scenario. But I don't see any win with restricting it. We will see, how it works out for me.