On December 19, 2015 12:52:06 PM EST, Julien Kyou <jul...@thisyear.me> wrote: >Sorry to Mark Holmquist for double send > >On December 19, 2015 12:48:13 PM EST, Julien Kyou <jul...@thisyear.me> >wrote: >> >> >>On December 19, 2015 11:02:47 AM EST, Mark Holmquist >><mtrac...@member.fsf.org> wrote: >>>On 12/18/2015 08:32 PM, Julien Kyou wrote: >>>> [0]meaning only this document not the licensed materials? >>> >>>Yes, the first "Do WTF you want" clause is about the license, not the > >>>works being licensed under it. That means the license is also >>>modifiable >>>and adaptable. >>> >>>>> [1]so basically closing the source is ok? >>> > I was not really asking this, so much as pointing it out >>> >>>Yes - this is the biggest difference between a copyleft license and a > >>>permissive license, and it's nothing new, and there's nothing wrong >>>with >>>it necessarily. I'd argue that the community of programmers often >>>doesn't pull source code into secret, but if they absolutely need to, > >>>they have that freedom. >>> >> >>I have seen this happen a few times in the past >> >>>(I realize it was a rhetorical question, but since it's also a >>>contention that allowing downstream to close the source is >>>*necessarily* >>>an issue, I answered it anyway) >>> >>>> Absolutely, I agree 'permissive-non-copyleft' has a place but for >>>most >>>> things I'd sooner just slap a GPL on and be done >>> >>>The GPL, for all the good it does in the world, is a more complex >>>license to administer and enforce. You must include license headers >in >> >>>all of the files in your project, for example, which may not be a >>>viable >>>option for some, or may be a step that others ignore. >>> >>>To enforce the GPL, especially the parts about including a GPL'd >>>library >>>in a compiled binary of a larger project, requires a lot of >sleuthing, >> >>>or to simply rely on the goodwill of other programmers. The latter >>>solution usually works pretty well, but if the Free Software movement > >>>asserts that non-free software is unethical, surely they're capable >of >> >>>ignoring license terms. >>> >>>And, if you're working on a project that *is* non-free, but you want >>to >>> >>>release a library that you wrote for it as free software, you can >>>release it under a permissive license (though admittedly, a company >>>probably wouldn't want the WTFPL exactly, though it is modifiable, so > >>>they could transform it to say "You just DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO.") >>>with >>>relative ease, and avoid a lot of overhead of making sure you're >>>complying with every single provision of the GPL or whatever other >>>document you had discovered. >>> >>>I guess I'm just adding examples to your statement that permissive >>>licenses "ha[ve] a place", but I felt it would be useful. I often >fear >> >>>this mailing list is getting a little tone-deaf. >>> >>>> Anyways, I just don't like seeing open-source being abused. So when >>I >>> > learnt of this zero clause license, I felt sick. >>> >>>How is this an abuse of open-source? It's a valid open source >license. >> >>It isn't. The idiot who made may be hurting both movements though.
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
