Has the Open Source Initiative (OSI) said anything about the motivations for
open source?
I assume that the OSI's definition of open source accomodates Tom Preston
-Werner's vision. And perhaps others' visions too? Are there other visions
for open source?
http://opensource.org/osd
This has been discussed many times in these forums.
Extracted from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html :
There are only a couple of kinds of projects that we think should not have
any copyleft at all. The first is very small projects. We use 300 lines as
our benchmark:
hurrr the GPL is too long! Reading is hard!
Yeah well so is the US constitution, what kind of pleb-tier argument is this?
The GPL,LGPL, and AGPL are for software where the Free Software Foundation
has been assigned the copyright. The Apache Public license was created for
Apache by Apache. The Mozilla Public license was created by Mozilla. The
copyright owner controls and protects the software. The copyright
I'm aware that Apache 2.0 is permissive, but doesn't it have patent
protection that both BSD and MIT lack?
That reminds me of some fonts that Adobe releases as free software under SIL
1.1, but can only be created from source code using their non-free tools.
This is probably why you don't see Adobe's Source Sans Pro, Source Serif Pro,
and Source Code Pro fonts in the Debian/Trisquel/Ubuntu
Try out GitLab: https://www.gitlab.com
I agree because people like him want to take code from others and since it
isn't copyleft, it is the best option to make non-free or never contribute
back.
They only want to release code that is safe to release and hope that the
community will work on it for them (beats paying a full time
The Xiph codecs should stay under a BSD license to aid in adoption and to
provide a free option. Even RMS agrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorbis
Yeah, you're right. It was long after my post did I think about it.
I guess the next time somebody brings that (freedom 0 and allowing Free
Software to be re-released unfreely based on it and debating GPL's freeness
based on it) up when it comes to discussing software freedom I can explain
I'd like to add that the logic used here would also work for justifying the
legalization of slavery. You could say, We want workers to have the freedom
to choose how they want to work, and that's why permitting people to sell
themselves into slavery is the best way. (It's not the same, mind
Actually the GPL sin't focused on total (any better words?) freedom as it
basically says Don't tell the world that it's your writing since it wasn't,
and don't you dare to re-release a version of this software that is not
*free* ,
while non-copyleft lincences simply say Don't tell the world
Not quite.
Writing proprietary software is more like offering somebody to become a slave
at free will.
It's like raising the question: who wants to become my slave voluntarily?.
It's similar but not the same like enslaving people directly since they are
free to choose whether they want to
Exactly.
Doesn't Apache 2.0 fix this?
I'm not Tom Preston-Wener, so therefore I didn't give the speech in question.
Direct your anger towards him.
GPL gives total freedom to the user, but restricted freedom to the developer.
Permissive gives total freedom to the user and developer, but then allows
other developers to change the intention of the original developer by making
proprietary or bundling it with other proprietary software.
No, that's a permissive license. Incidentally, since this anti-GPL FUD
includes complaints that the GPL is long, it doesn't work to support the
Apache License, itself being lengthy.
Some time ago I heard that github is not Open Source, so I decided to use
gitorius insted which is copylefted free software under the AGPL. At this
time I was a Mac User but I know that if something is not open source, it is
certainly not free software. [RMS]
When I browse github, I still
Freedom 0 means that you can use the program in whatever way you want, not
that you can do whatever you want with it.
I looked at choosealicense.com, and found out that this page uses the word
content that one should avoid.
Another reason to avoid using the site is that it leaves No license on the
table as a legitimate option. If you send people to choosealicense.com, they
may decide to go the no license
Tom Preston-Warner represents the open source world. In the open source
world, open source code exists so that proprietary software developers can
build their proprietary software on top of collaboratively maintained
libraries and frameworks. That's why his mantra is open source almost
great post
http://tom.preston-werner.com/2011/11/22/open-source-everything.html
Have you ever written an amazing library or tool at one job and then left to
join another company only to rewrite that code or remain miserable in its
absence? [...] By getting code out in the public we can
Yeah but I think the the former is sometimes a bit too synonymous with the
latter.
I was installing jxself's kernel today on a new rig and decided to stalk him
on identica and saw him comment about GitHub's Tom Preston-Wener's keynote
talking about FLOSS licenses at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAAlPXB2-c
around the 10:52 mark.
Is this a new mentality where the cool
Sounded like FUD to me.
Follow up interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DoB0SCUtOk
Exerpt from
http://tom.preston-werner.com/2011/11/22/open-source-everything.html
What is the One True License?
I prefer the MIT license and almost everything we open source at GitHub
carries this license. I love this license for several reasons:
* It's short. Anyone can read this license
We're not interested in your anti-GPL FUD, t3g.
That's FUD, plain and simple.
30 matches
Mail list logo
