4 ms·

Shouldn't this be, Why you should know what you're doing legally before you contribute code to free software? Or perhaps, The system works, notice how we avoide

Shouldn't this be, Why you should know what you're doing legally before you contribute code to free software? Or perhaps, The system works, notice how we avoided the mistake of including software with an eccentric and non-free license from being included in free software? It takes me back to the frenzy over VLC on iOS. People write code, we need to respect their choices with respect to how they license it, even if their choice is whimsey with a dangerous side of legal morass. This argument sounds dangerously like a tirade because Mr. Crockford did something that did not benefit the free software movement. His software is un-free, just as the GPL is un-free. I'm ok with that, even if my lawyer isn't ok with me using his code.

bad_user 14y ago
I agree with your argument, however I don't agree that the GPL is un-free. First of all, there's a clear distinction between the GPL and this modified MIT license - the GPL was written with the help of actual lawyers and it's a solid license that can stand on its own in a court of law. If you think that the GPL gives you certain privileges or takes away some freedoms, then it's actually easy to verify that by simply asking a lawyer. Also, GPL is a license that has restrictions on distribution and not usage. Usage of GPL-software is completely free. Of course, sometimes the usage/distribution boundaries are blurred when you're speaking about platforms, so GPL 3 drew a line in the sand to prevent cases such as Tivo, however to quote Linus Tolvards which represents the other side of the coin in any talks related to GPL [1]: """If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by me. I like sharks with lasers. I just want the mad scientists of the world to pay me back in kind. I made source code available to them, they have to make their changes to it available to me. After that, they can fry me with their shark-mounted lasers all they want.""" This is also not a matter of free / un-free. But rather a mater of legal liability. If somebody can prove that you used the software for "Evil", whatever that may mean, then you're legally liable. So what's evil anyway? Is making money evil? [1] http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/09/torvalds-linux-licensing-cz_dl_0309torvalds1_print.html http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/09/torvalds-linux-licensing-cz...
- benatkin 14y ago
  The GPL says plainly that it shall not be modified. I find that equally worrying. What if I save a word wrapped version of it to a file?
  - bad_user 14y ago
    You're making a confusion between the content and the distribution format.
rmc 14y ago
the GPL is un-free Now that's a contentous statement, depending on one's definition of "free" and "un-free". However the GPL, unlike this "no evil licence", is an FSF approved, and OSI approved, and DFSG approved licence. They aren't in the same category.
- michaelt 14y ago
  If FSF had the foresight to trademark Free Software™ and Open Source™ we wouldn't have this sort of confusion.
  - rmc 14y ago
    The OSI tried and failed to trademark "Open Source". It failed because it was too generic IIRC. Trademark law isn't needed. There isn't really any disagreements over the terms "Free (as in freedom) Software" or "Open Source".

bad_user 14y ago

I agree with your argument, however I don't agree that the GPL is un-free. First of all, there's a clear distinction between the GPL and this modified MIT license - the GPL was written with the help of actual lawyers and it's a solid license that can stand on its own in a court of law. If you think that the GPL gives you certain privileges or takes away some freedoms, then it's actually easy to verify that by simply asking a lawyer. Also, GPL is a license that has restrictions on distribution and not usage. Usage of GPL-software is completely free. Of course, sometimes the usage/distribution boundaries are blurred when you're speaking about platforms, so GPL 3 drew a line in the sand to prevent cases such as Tivo, however to quote Linus Tolvards which represents the other side of the coin in any talks related to GPL [1]: """If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by me. I like sharks with lasers. I just want the mad scientists of the world to pay me back in kind. I made source code available to them, they have to make their changes to it available to me. After that, they can fry me with their shark-mounted lasers all they want.""" This is also not a matter of free / un-free. But rather a mater of legal liability. If somebody can prove that you used the software for "Evil", whatever that may mean, then you're legally liable. So what's evil anyway? Is making money evil? [1] http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/09/torvalds-linux-licensing-cz_dl_0309torvalds1_print.html http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/09/torvalds-linux-licensing-cz...

benatkin 14y ago
The GPL says plainly that it shall not be modified. I find that equally worrying. What if I save a word wrapped version of it to a file?
- bad_user 14y ago
  You're making a confusion between the content and the distribution format.

rmc 14y ago

the GPL is un-free Now that's a contentous statement, depending on one's definition of "free" and "un-free". However the GPL, unlike this "no evil licence", is an FSF approved, and OSI approved, and DFSG approved licence. They aren't in the same category.

michaelt 14y ago
If FSF had the foresight to trademark Free Software™ and Open Source™ we wouldn't have this sort of confusion.
- rmc 14y ago
  The OSI tried and failed to trademark "Open Source". It failed because it was too generic IIRC. Trademark law isn't needed. There isn't really any disagreements over the terms "Free (as in freedom) Software" or "Open Source".