2 ms·

I can't speak for the FSF, SFLC, or those who agreed with the views they promoted. I do think it's important to remember that this all started decades ago, when

I can't speak for the FSF, SFLC, or those who agreed with the views they promoted. I do think it's important to remember that this all started decades ago, when many fewer cases had been decided and what the law would be likely felt more up for grabs. My best guess is in the blog post. A lot of activist attention was focused on trying to push back against strong copyright. If that work succeeded, it could have meant nothing if "evil" software companies just used contract law to restrict software instead.

salawat 3y ago
Ya know, it was pretty clearly laid out it seemed back in the 00's when I even first had copyleft explained to me. There is copyright. Everything has it. There is also copyleft. It's an act of copyright. Comply by sharing when asked, or you've violated the terms unless you negotiated some alternative arrangement ahead of time. I look at all the hand wringing by the legal profession and I just have to shake my head in confusion in how the semantics on this are still contested so in a profession where we even acknowledge that what is written may not be reflective of the original intent. Then again, billions of dollars worth of captive audience/free developer hours are up for grabs. Suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
em-bee 3y ago
in the end all of this is a strategy to protect the intention and benefit of Free Software. as a FOSS developer and user i don't care about the legal distinction but about the resulting effect. as our understanding of the law improves and as the methods and strategies to take advantage of public code evolves, our strategies to defend against misuse must necessarily also evolve. for me the question is not, which interpretation is right, but which one works to convey and protect the intention of FOSS licenses. the most important aspect in my eyes is that the intention has always been consistent and will not change, and that all changes in the explanation and interpretation are intended to uphold that intention.

salawat 3y ago

Ya know, it was pretty clearly laid out it seemed back in the 00's when I even first had copyleft explained to me. There is copyright. Everything has it. There is also copyleft. It's an act of copyright. Comply by sharing when asked, or you've violated the terms unless you negotiated some alternative arrangement ahead of time. I look at all the hand wringing by the legal profession and I just have to shake my head in confusion in how the semantics on this are still contested so in a profession where we even acknowledge that what is written may not be reflective of the original intent. Then again, billions of dollars worth of captive audience/free developer hours are up for grabs. Suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

em-bee 3y ago

in the end all of this is a strategy to protect the intention and benefit of Free Software. as a FOSS developer and user i don't care about the legal distinction but about the resulting effect. as our understanding of the law improves and as the methods and strategies to take advantage of public code evolves, our strategies to defend against misuse must necessarily also evolve. for me the question is not, which interpretation is right, but which one works to convey and protect the intention of FOSS licenses. the most important aspect in my eyes is that the intention has always been consistent and will not change, and that all changes in the explanation and interpretation are intended to uphold that intention.