3 ms·
> 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 sho
by 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".