4 ms·

The lack of very obvious attribution or association in the website copy from @sircmpwn is a little odd. The very-subtle-is-it-even-clickable circle top-right is

The lack of very obvious attribution or association in the website copy from @sircmpwn is a little odd. The very-subtle-is-it-even-clickable circle top-right is the only indicator. Otherwise this looks pretty good (though my first impression was "who is this? why should I read it?" so it took me a while to get into it) - I'll definitely be sending it to people; it's clean, tidy & straightforward. One nit-pick: the term "free software" is often understood to be narrowly defined (copyleft), so including permissive licences is tricky, though they're at least described AFTER the copyleft section, which is nice. Although... is MPL copyleft???

distcs 3y ago
The term "free software" as defined by FSF always included permissive open source licenses. Do you have any link or evidence to present that supports your claim that FSF's free software definition excluded permissive licenses?
dralley 3y ago
MPL 2.0 is copyleft. A weak copyleft, slightly weaker than LGPL, but still copyleft. I quite like it. It's much simpler to understand and easier to comply with than LGPL.
- GoblinSlayer 3y ago
  MPL selfdestructs after compilation, that's quite counterintuitive "copyleft".
  - dralley 3y ago
    On the contrary. MPL protects source code files. If you copy the source code files, you copy the license. If you add new source to the same files, that code must share the same license. That's perfectly simple to understand. Compare to the LGPL, which has different rules depending on the exact details of how the library is constructed and linked.
    - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
      What's the point of sharing a license that will selfdestruct anyway? What's the difference if it existed before selfdestruction or not?
      - dralley 3y ago
        There is no "self destruction", I don't really know why you think there is. The license requires you to provide source code for the MPL-2.0 licensed source code files regardless of how your software is built (that's why it is in fact copyleft). What it doesn't do is force you to license non-MPL-2.0 source code files under the MPL-2.0, even if you combine the two into a binary. It is explicitly non-viral, but still enforces copyleft protections onto the originally licensed code.

distcs 3y ago

The term "free software" as defined by FSF always included permissive open source licenses. Do you have any link or evidence to present that supports your claim that FSF's free software definition excluded permissive licenses?

dralley 3y ago

MPL 2.0 is copyleft. A weak copyleft, slightly weaker than LGPL, but still copyleft. I quite like it. It's much simpler to understand and easier to comply with than LGPL.

GoblinSlayer 3y ago
MPL selfdestructs after compilation, that's quite counterintuitive "copyleft".
- dralley 3y ago
  On the contrary. MPL protects source code files. If you copy the source code files, you copy the license. If you add new source to the same files, that code must share the same license. That's perfectly simple to understand. Compare to the LGPL, which has different rules depending on the exact details of how the library is constructed and linked.
  - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
    What's the point of sharing a license that will selfdestruct anyway? What's the difference if it existed before selfdestruction or not?
    - dralley 3y ago
      There is no "self destruction", I don't really know why you think there is. The license requires you to provide source code for the MPL-2.0 licensed source code files regardless of how your software is built (that's why it is in fact copyleft). What it doesn't do is force you to license non-MPL-2.0 source code files under the MPL-2.0, even if you combine the two into a binary. It is explicitly non-viral, but still enforces copyleft protections onto the originally licensed code.