4 ms·

>I'd also suggest that there's a significant overlap between people who choose copyleft licenses and people who avoid proprietary hosting services. Very true,

by arfar 12y ago

>I'd also suggest that there's a significant overlap between people who choose copyleft licenses and people who avoid proprietary hosting services. Very true, I quite like that some have adopted the "Don't Fork Me"[1] flag for the corner of their software pages. Nice cheeky little stab [1] http://librecmc.org/librecmc/wiki?name=github http://librecmc.org/librecmc/wiki?name=github

ChuckMcM 12y ago
I think this page: http://librecmc.org/librecmc/wiki?name=Source+Repository http://librecmc.org/librecmc/wiki?name=Source+Repository really spells out the challenge. The librecmc folks are scrambling to find someone who will give away their work for free to host their repository which they give away for free. Except there isn't anyone at the moment[1], and so they are nominally forced to shoulder the costs for that or just evaporate. The "strength" of free software is that you have all the code so you can shoulder that cost. But its really painful to bear the costs of your free software that other folks are benefiting from every day, for free. Github seems like a reasonable compromise in this regard. [1] Well not since the acquisition of Gitorius
detaro 12y ago
It is strange to see an argument like "They didn't like our change to the license descriptions to a more political one". You want everything to be copyleft, including your infrastructure, that is fine and consistent. Say so, act accordingly and encourage others to do so, but that is just petty.
- quadrangle 12y ago
  The license description at choosealicense.com actually misrepresents the GPL. The GPL doesn't actually require that the source of modified versions be released to the original author. It requires that the source be released to the users who get the software. It is a downstream license designed for the freedom of the users and only incidentally works incompletely as a license to promote sharing the code back. Everything about the design of the GPL including the very wording of the license is explicitly about blocking software from becoming proprietary. The choosealicense.com description is intentionally designed to avoid giving any acknowledgement of the GPL's actual design and intention because they don't want people to value the things the GPL is about.
  - zerocrates 12y ago
    > The license description at choosealicense.com actually misrepresents the GPL. The GPL doesn't actually require that the source of modified versions be released to the original author. Where are you seeing a description that says sources must go to the author? I only see > requires anyone who distributes your code or a derivative work to make the source available under the same terms and > When distributing derived works, the source code of the work must be made available under the same license. Those both seem accurate, if maybe a little less clear than they might be.

by arfar 12y ago

ChuckMcM 12y ago

I think this page: http://librecmc.org/librecmc/wiki?name=Source+Repository http://librecmc.org/librecmc/wiki?name=Source+Repository really spells out the challenge. The librecmc folks are scrambling to find someone who will give away their work for free to host their repository which they give away for free. Except there isn't anyone at the moment[1], and so they are nominally forced to shoulder the costs for that or just evaporate. The "strength" of free software is that you have all the code so you can shoulder that cost. But its really painful to bear the costs of your free software that other folks are benefiting from every day, for free. Github seems like a reasonable compromise in this regard. [1] Well not since the acquisition of Gitorius

detaro 12y ago

It is strange to see an argument like "They didn't like our change to the license descriptions to a more political one". You want everything to be copyleft, including your infrastructure, that is fine and consistent. Say so, act accordingly and encourage others to do so, but that is just petty.

quadrangle 12y ago
The license description at choosealicense.com actually misrepresents the GPL. The GPL doesn't actually require that the source of modified versions be released to the original author. It requires that the source be released to the users who get the software. It is a downstream license designed for the freedom of the users and only incidentally works incompletely as a license to promote sharing the code back. Everything about the design of the GPL including the very wording of the license is explicitly about blocking software from becoming proprietary. The choosealicense.com description is intentionally designed to avoid giving any acknowledgement of the GPL's actual design and intention because they don't want people to value the things the GPL is about.
- zerocrates 12y ago
  > The license description at choosealicense.com actually misrepresents the GPL. The GPL doesn't actually require that the source of modified versions be released to the original author. Where are you seeing a description that says sources must go to the author? I only see > requires anyone who distributes your code or a derivative work to make the source available under the same terms and > When distributing derived works, the source code of the work must be made available under the same license. Those both seem accurate, if maybe a little less clear than they might be.