On February 9, 2015 at 15:17:22, Ryan Lane (rlan...@gmail.com) wrote: You're implying that Apache2 licensed software is somehow not part of the free software movement and that's absurd. Apache2 is technically a freer license than GPLv(anything). Like GPL3, it also provides patent protection. In practice it doesn't matter if software is forked and closed if the canonical source isn't. The org that forks must maintain their fork and all of their modifications without help. It's onerous and generally unmaintainable for most orgs, especially if their core business isn't based on the software, or if the canonical source is fast moving. Please don’t spread misinformation to those who don’t know any better. The goal of the free software movement is to ensure the freedoms of end users to see the source code of the software they use. Any license that allows distributors to deny users this right is not actually protecting the goal of the movement. To be clear, software can be free without specifically supporting the free software movement.
The GPLv3 was specifically developed to make distributor enforcement of the GPLv3 easier. Rather than requiring third-parties to give out source code on a physical medium, which, as you mentioned, is onerous for many organizations, the newer license is more lax. It's your choice to not participate in any project for any reason, but try to understand that some people (such as myself) much prefer to work on software that's truly free, rather than virally free. I hope you don’t seriously think GPL software is not “truly free”. -- Tyler Romeo 0x405D34A7C86B42DF
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using AMPGpg
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
