Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
I remember the #FOSS community reaction claiming that Google used their #OpenSource hosting service, code.google.com, (eventually @killedbygoogle) to bend perceptions on licenses in ways that were favorable to them.
First, #AGPLv3 licensed #FreeSoftware projects were banned...
https://www.cnet.com/culture/googles-festering-problem-with-the-agpl/
@msw I kinda get banning AGPLv3. It’s pretty hostile to business.
@OrdinaryWonder It's only hostile to business that is incompatible with Software Freedom for end-users of network accessible services.
@msw or businesses that have patents
@OrdinaryWonder Many in the #FOSS world believe that software patents are incompatible with end-user #SoftwareFreedom.
There are licenses that go pretty far to try to neutralize software patents. In some ways, other licenses go farther than AGPLv3 does on patent rights.
@msw I think patents are bad, but it shouldn’t be surprising if businesses want nothing to do with stuff licensed that way.
@OrdinaryWonder Then they'll have to do without software licensed under Apache License 2.0, GPLv3, MPL 2.0, Eclipse Public License 2.0 ...
@msw sounds about right. I've worked at a few companies that sell physical devices containing software. They all have lists of approved licenses. GPLv3 is the only one that commonly causes a problem. Most devices don't come with eclipse or Firefox installed.
People should use whatever license they want for their work. However, if you're hostile to big business don't expect them to provide free hosting.
@OrdinaryWonder Indeed, the obligation to allow the owner of a "user product" that contains GPLv3 licensed software (among other licenses) the instructions to build the source code, and ability to install a modified version of that software on their device, is one that many device manufacturers don't want to undertake. GPLv2 isn't materially different in that.
@OrdinaryWonder I don't think it's "hostile to big business" to offer an often attractive bargain, roughly: "If you want to use the software we make available to all to use in any way they'd like, you need to pass the freedoms forward to others that receive the software from you."
Agree that people should use whatever license they want for their work. As a user, you can decide to accept those terms, or not use the software.
@msw if one of those freedoms is to give their competitors the right to sell their work, I think that counts as hostile.
I think I see things the other way around. Ford, Boeing, and Qualcomm are not going to give anyone access to their IP, and FOSS can't change that. Linux with GPLv2 does something amazing: it gets a bunch of corporate dollars from competing companies into improving Linux.
@OrdinaryWonder They have the freedom to sell Linux, and software built with GCC, and many other creative and useful software works that have been freely given to the #FOSS Commons.
They don't /have/ to use those software packages.
They're free to do so, so long as they understand and comply with the obligations. I don't see how that's hostile.
even though we don't do that, it tells us a lot about their own hostility