3 ms·
* an organization that doesn’t believe in software freedoms If you believe in software freedoms, then there will never be any reason to need to relicense, nor
by sneak 3y ago
* an organization that doesn’t believe in software freedoms
If you believe in software freedoms, then there will never be any reason to need to relicense, nor would you want to.
Free software is an ideology, like human rights. You can’t use it only sometimes and be said to support it.
- loeg 3y agoYeah. I think in your dichotomy, most of the world does not believe in software freedoms.
- crote 3y agoMost of the world is developing closed-source software. When you publish an open-source project, people are going to assume you want your project to be open source. This often provides an enormous boost to the project, as people are way more willing to contribute to a collaborative community project than just donating time to some for-profit company. I am totally fine with companies making proprietary for-profit software, but don't leech off the open-source community by pretending to be something you are not. I am at a point where I assume any company-backed project with a CLA is going to do a bait-and-switch as soon as that becomes the more profitable option. Remember kids: corporations are not your friend.
- shusaku 3y ago> If you believe in software freedoms, then there will never be any reason to need to relicense, nor would you want to. The linked article is precisely a counter example to this point!
- sneak 3y agoWhy is 0mq relicensing? TFA doesn’t say.
- JoshuaRogers 3y ago> If you believe in software freedoms, then there will never be any reason to need to relicense, nor would you want to. The Tivo-ization process of the 90s shows that while this might be frequently true, it isn’t without exception. From a practical standpoint, continuing to provide for user freedom would have been best accomplished (personal opinion) if many projects had been able to move to a more AGPL style license.
- jrockway 3y agoYeah, the entire security posture of Android would be massively different if Linux could have been relicensed away from GPL 2.0 to a license that says "you have to give users a way to compile your code and install it". Now the community can fix old phones without security updates.
- mindslight 3y agoGPL2 already has this: > For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. My amateur understanding is that the major kernel copyright holders are essentially comfortable with Tivoization and aren't looking to rock the boat with a lawsuit.
- sneak 3y agoThere are many of us who believe that the AGPL is a nonfree license.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Dylan16807 3y agoI'm interested in why you think that. What if there was an extreme license that simply said you have to share it upon request from anyone, even private versions? Ignoring whether that's annoying or whether it's enforceable, would that be non-free? I've seen an argument that the particular way the AGPL is worded makes it non-free, which seems pretty plausible, but I don't think that's an argument against "a more AGPL style license".
- Dylan16807 3y ago> If you believe in software freedoms, then there will never be any reason to need to relicense, nor would you want to. Are you claiming the MPL is not a free software license?
- cwp 3y agoThe FSF disagrees with you on that.
- kbutler 3y agoIsn't this very topic, the relicensing of ZeroMQ, a proof that there is a need and desire to relicense by an organization that believes in software freedom?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]