4 ms·
The author didn't like how the alternative definition was highly likely to cause misapprehension by likely user audience, who generally use a different interpre
by eesmith 2y ago
The author didn't like how the alternative definition was highly likely to cause misapprehension by likely user audience, who generally use a different interpretation.
That's nothing to do with a monopoly.
I completely agree with your post-SSPL view of the OSI. Just because all of the big cloud providers are unethical does not give them an escape card. Still, that has no bearing on this essay, which are specific clauses in the FUTO definition.
Saying that I cannot change parts of the code is anathema to the underlying concepts behind all generally accepted uses of FLOSS, including Debian's.
On a practical side, what happens if/when FUTO-the-organization no longer exists? Or if a future FUTO license change in a way that people don't like? (The FSF, as an example, has legal agreements with its contributors that any future license changes will only be within a certain framework of free software.)
On a legal side, what is "advertisement"? If the credits say "Portions copyright eesmith. Contact eesmith@example.com for paid support and consulting.", that's clearly advertising, right? Why should that be prohibited?
Is "CV at https://example.com/~eesmith/ https://example.com/~eesmith/" also advertising?
Similarly, what is "malware"?
The recent Microsoft Recall debacle tells me the difference between "malware" and "not malware" is that if somewhere, deep inside the terms of service that few read but everyone agrees to, there is a description of the functionality, then it's not malware.
As part of the utopic vision, I'm one of the supporters of universal basic income. Amazing's copying and cloudifying should lead to taxes which pay stoners to sit on the beach staring at the waves, coders to sit behind screens writing FOSS, and parents to have extra time and security with their kids.
I simply don't think it can be solved through copyright law. Licensing is a very small lever.
- immibis 2y agoIn my reading, there are mostly only restrictions on the changes you can make: you can't add advertisements, and you can't add payment links to anyone except Futo. However you also can't remove the payment links to Futo. THAT restriction isn't okay by any definition of free or open. They could try to define a bright line for what counts as advertisement or a payment link, but bright line definitions are vulnerable to being gamed. Remember Tivoization? The GPL said we had to let you modify the software, but not INSTALL the modified software! Actually most contracts and licenses involve vague terms. If the license says N, then you want to stay below N-5 to make sure they have no excuse to sue you, and they don't want to waste money suing you unless you're at N+5 to be sure they'll win. The exact number 5 can vary. Some unscrupulous actors will actually cross over the line to test their luck / your boundaries.
- pabs3 2y agoWhat Tivo did was different to "Tivoization", Tivo allowed you to install the modified GPLed software (Linux), but then prevented the proprietary software that ran on top of Linux from running on modified Linux versions. What Tivo did is allowed by both GPLv2 and GPLv3 and "Tivoization" is banned by both GPLv2 and GPLv3. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-the-gpl-right-to-install/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Safely-Copylefted-Cars-Reexamining-GPLv3-Installation-Information-Requirements-ALS-Bradley-Kuhn-Behan-Webster-1.pdf https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...