Podcast #128: We chat with Kent C Dodds about why he loves React and discuss what life was like in the dark days before Git. Listen now.

Hot answers tagged

14

The quote appears to be misleading. According to “Why did you decide to write the GNU Affero GPLv3 as a separate license?” in the GPL FAQ, early drafts of the GPLv3 allowed an AGPL-like restriction to be added to the license (compare the Additional Terms mechanism in Section 7 of the GPLv3). This was dropped during the public review process: some ...


13

They only list GNU/Linux distributions that follow the GNU FSDG (Free System Distribution Guidelines). That the software (as well as the documentation, fonts etc.) is licensed under an appropriate FSF-approved license is one condition, but it’s not the only one. That’s why even a GNU/Linux distribution that only ships with free/libre software/information ...


12

At the bottom of the page you linked is a link named "why we don't endorse some common distributions" There you will find this text: We're often asked why we don't endorse a particular system—usually a popular GNU/Linux distribution. The short answer to that question is that they don't follow the free system distribution guidelines. But since it isn'...


9

Their Open Source Definition doesn't mention "proprietary software" explicitly, but their requirements for calling something "open source" seem to preclude any proprietary software from calling itself "open source": 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an ...


7

"Libre" is a French word (not English). So, people outside France (especially from various countries in the world) may not recognize it at all. Quoted from here: Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own. We've looked at many that people have suggested, but none is so clearly “right” that switching to it would be a good ...


6

The OSI, and Open Source Movement in general, views proprietary software as having its place, and able to co-exist with FOSS, and advocates for FOSS as a matter of pragmatism rather than ethics. One example of this type of pragmatic argument is the essay The Cathedral and the Bazaar. As a movement created from and in response to the FSF's antagonism towards ...


6

Does that mean that when you specify GPLv3 or any later version that anybody who receives the code may add a later version that may not be necessarily compliant with the current version? Yes, if you indicate your license as "GPL version X or any later version" then recipients may operate under the requirements of GPL version X or any higher-numbered ...


5

The article "Drafting Options for Contributor Agreements for Free and Open Source Software: Assignment, (Non)Exclusive Licence and Legal Consequences. A Comparative Analysis of German and US Law" specifically deals with this topic. The point is that copyright licenses and usage right can still be licensed in Germany with effects essentially similar: ...


5

Just about the best term for it you have already mentioned. FLOSS is a fairly widely-used acronym for software that is both free and open-source. You can also use FOSS, but there is an important note about FLOSS: Libre, in French or Spanish, refers to 'free' in the way that we refer to it when saying 'free as in speech'. It means liberty, not lack of cost. ...


4

In my opinion, that paragraph means absolutely nothing. Copyright ranges are used to indicate that new versions of the work were made or released, and to indicate the years when those changes were made (and effectively copyrighted). To explain through example, I have a blog. I've posted on that blog for six consecutive years. In my copyright statement, I ...


3

The OSI doesn't say anything because the OSI is not trying to persuade the world that only Free/Libre software is ethical. It's merely trying to standardize the definitions and advocate for its advantages.


3

In any nation that is signatory to the Berne Convention, copyright (i.e., a monopoly on redistribution, derivatives, public display, etc.) is automatically in force for the author of a creative work. An author may use license to grant some rights to other people, and, even when using a free/open license, may place requirements on reuse, such as requiring ...


3

Putting a copyright text for license with the source code does not normally complete the licensing process According to the GPL, it does: If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms. ...


3

Just because something doesn't make sense to us laypeople doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense in a court of law, which is where these types of details are decided in fine. The FSF presumably has good reason to write this... The first point to remember is that documenting copyright years serves to determine the date at which works fall out of copyright. ...


2

Copyright law protect the expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. This means that if you read the source code of the AI to distill some ideas from it, then you can apply those ideas to your own work without being affected by the copyright license of the AI. However, when doing this you have to be careful, especially if you use those ideas in a ...


2

If you specify "GNU GPL v3" without "or later" then that is the only license other people can distribute the code under. That's why Linux is still licensed under version 2. If you specify "GNU GPL v3 or later" then you are multi-licensing your code. The two licenses do not have to be compatible, and based on previous license updates, will usually be at most ...


2

I'm going to assume that your ethical criteria are the same as the FSF's. I observe in passing that the FSF is not just focussed on traditionally-repressive regimes; one of the two C2-class failures in GitHub's report relates to US export controls. As has been noted, GNU Savannah seems to deal with this by not hosting projects that might run foul of US ...


2

The FSF has a process to approve licenses they consider free. OSI has a process to approve licenses that they consider open. A requirement for the FSF to consider a license free is that it is open, so all free licenses are open source licenses. But not all licenses that have been approved by the FSF have also be approved by OSI. Usually this is because ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible