Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
Riley Baird (Orthogonal) orthogo...@librewrt.org writes: On 05/08/14 12:10, Felipe Sanches wrote: Is there something similar to http://choosealicense.com/ but with language better aligned to the mission of the free software movement ? I don't know, but personally, I think that a fork over something like this would be a bad idea. We don't fork every program that uses the word Linux instead of GNU/Linux to refer to the operating system in its documentation, for example. If you're concerned about it, perhaps you could write to the maintainer and ask them to use neutral terms (e.g. FLOSS instead of OSS on their main page). Well, there are a lot of other problems with the license chooser in addition to that. It is pretty anti-copyleft. We submitted a patch to fix the factual description of the GPL and it was rejected. For example, the choice to present the GPL's protections as restrictions/requirements is a loaded one. -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: 61A0963B | http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=8096.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
Well, there are a lot of other problems with the license chooser in addition to that. It is pretty anti-copyleft. We submitted a patch to fix the factual description of the GPL and it was rejected. What part of their description is untrue? This is all the information I could find on the GPL on their website: The GPL (V2 or V3) is a copyleft license that requires anyone who distributes your code or a derivative work to make the source available under the same terms. V3 is similar to V2, but further restricts use in hardware that forbids software alterations. Linux, Git, and WordPress use the GPL. How to apply this license Create a text file (typically named LICENSE or LICENSE.txt) in the root of your source code and copy the text of the license into the file. Note: The Free Software Foundation recommends taking the additional step of adding a boilerplate notice to the top of each file. The boilerplate can be found at the end of the license. Required Disclose Source License and copyright notice State Changes Permitted Commercial Use Distribution Modification Patent Grant Private Use Forbidden Hold Liable Sublicensing For example, the choice to present the GPL's protections as restrictions/requirements is a loaded one. I don't think that saying that the protections are requirements is loaded language. For example, license and copyright notice is held to be a requirement, and this is still listen as a requirement on the MIT license's page. (That being said, there are some requirements of the GPL which they do not list, e.g. 2a and 2c of GPLv2)
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] choosealicense.com fork with better wording, perhaps ?
Riley Baird asked: What part of their description is untrue? One example: Presenting the anti-tivoization provisions in the GPLv3 as a restriction. If you listen to Tom Preston-Werner's (GitHub co-founder) anti-GPL keynote from OSCON his position on the GPL will become clear and shouldn't be surprising that the website reflects this.
