3 ms·

As a user, I find nothing encumbering about the LGPL. I'd argue it's liberating. It might be encumbering for a developer to release a proprietary, for profit

by snarfy 12y ago

As a user, I find nothing encumbering about the LGPL. I'd argue it's liberating. It might be encumbering for a developer to release a proprietary, for profit version based off the work of others, but for a user it's great.

mindslight 12y ago
My first computer running GNU/Linux: Single core, 66MHz, 8MiB RAM. Galaxy S4 i9500: Octa-core, 1200/1600MHz, 2048MiB RAM. That's an advancement of two orders of magnitude. Getting rid of the GPL so the platform could be locked down is basically the only reason for Google/Android's NIH. For all the techie mindshare, "open source" is worth about as much as Microsoft's "shared source" - essentially nothing when it comes to user freedom. Thank goodness for the (thoroughly pwned GPL2) kernel putting slight pressure on manufacturers to be open.
- sedachv 12y ago
  Android is the best argument for the AGPL.
  - RRRA 12y ago
    Everyone (MacOS X, Android, Jolla, etc.) is building there products, thanks to free Software, (GPL & not GPL) and than adding proprietary wrappers to lock things down & making sure they use non-Copyleft licences for anything else they add as "open"-ed. Free Software is about governance, community, open development, etc: not only the licence! These company are just grabbing what is now infrastructure built by everyone to sell it back to everyone, locked down, and doing code dumping with not-so-open development and communities to trap people who don't get it. So, since the free and open aspect could be built with Public Domain or non-copyleft licences by a community or company doing the right thing (tm), I agree, AGPL "all the things!" is the best way to eliminate part of this problem. (Yes, they can always relicence the code if they own it all, but that's the community & open development part that is harder to evaluate...)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by snarfy 12y ago

mindslight 12y ago

My first computer running GNU/Linux: Single core, 66MHz, 8MiB RAM. Galaxy S4 i9500: Octa-core, 1200/1600MHz, 2048MiB RAM. That's an advancement of two orders of magnitude. Getting rid of the GPL so the platform could be locked down is basically the only reason for Google/Android's NIH. For all the techie mindshare, "open source" is worth about as much as Microsoft's "shared source" - essentially nothing when it comes to user freedom. Thank goodness for the (thoroughly pwned GPL2) kernel putting slight pressure on manufacturers to be open.

sedachv 12y ago
Android is the best argument for the AGPL.
- RRRA 12y ago
  Everyone (MacOS X, Android, Jolla, etc.) is building there products, thanks to free Software, (GPL & not GPL) and than adding proprietary wrappers to lock things down & making sure they use non-Copyleft licences for anything else they add as "open"-ed. Free Software is about governance, community, open development, etc: not only the licence! These company are just grabbing what is now infrastructure built by everyone to sell it back to everyone, locked down, and doing code dumping with not-so-open development and communities to trap people who don't get it. So, since the free and open aspect could be built with Public Domain or non-copyleft licences by a community or company doing the right thing (tm), I agree, AGPL "all the things!" is the best way to eliminate part of this problem. (Yes, they can always relicence the code if they own it all, but that's the community & open development part that is harder to evaluate...)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]