Does the #GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt
In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing
"The big selling point is that 64DD hardware support is baked into the cartridge. Other N64 flash carts already offer this functionality but require a custom OS to be installed – SummerCart64 will offer 64DD support right out of the box..."
Maybe it’s just time to say “fuck it” and #GPL all the things?
The #OpenSource movement was a response to corporate skittishness around using #FOSS, and it focused on very permissive licenses to make corporations feel more comfortable using it. Maybe that turned out to be the wrong approach. Maybe the #OSI helped create the problem.
If the OSI helped create it, #GitHub encouraged and exacerbated it.
I’m not naive; a license is as effective as pissing in the wind if you don’t have the means to enforce it. Still, any recommendation on licenses to make it as difficult as possible for people like Palmer Luckey or dtolnay to benefit from it, in general??
Permissive is good, I don’t care whether it matches a libertarian definition of “open”.
In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing
In recent years (since 2018) there were a number of court cases in China related to the #GPL and other copyleft licenses. For a (chinese) list/summary, see https://www.openatom.org/law/database - the only sad part is that all of them about damages claims between companies; no community-oriented enforcement.
@happyborg if you wish, publish your code on whichever license you want.
Stop shaming and blaming developers that donate their time and code to everybody.
Not everybody wants a viral license.
Your toot is harmful. Shaming and blaming others will have an effect of them not giving a damn about open source. #GPL is not the answer to everything. There are dozens of #opensource licenses to choose from. Why do you try to polarize the community?
Does the #GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt#GNUGPLFAQ
We now understand why permissive #licensing is bad for #FOSS.
#Redis taught us why #GPL is important and #MIT, #Apache, #BSD etc allow corporations to enclose and steal our contributions.
#Israel's use of #Lavender for targeting in #Gaza, which may also use the code we donated to the commons, shows that we need to be more restrictive if we want to avoid assisting war crimes and probable #genocide.
I hope some lawyers are on this, and will help us add exclusions to protect from such use.
Does the #GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt#GNUGPLFAQ
@BrodieOnLinux in my opinion, we should blame it on the BSD / MIT style licenses that require nothing from downstream.
Corporations have access to thousands of libraries at no cost and no restrictions... People in general don't appreciate things that come easy, and tend to be irresponsible towards those things.
Does the added unpaid maintenance burden worth it now, that due to choosing MIT vs GPL, hundreds of proprietary junk use your code? I don't think so.
@nicemicro there’s something more: on corporate-owned servers (⇒ "software as a service") the #GPL (v2 or later) does not guarantee effective copyleft.
To have copyleft with server-side software you need to use the #AGPL (v3 or later).
In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing
In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing
Imagine the following situation: your project is MIT licensed. Someone takes the whole project and white-labels it (changes the name), then sells it commercially without providing the source code or sharing any of the sales revenue with you. They include "Copyright <your name>" and a copy of the MIT license in the "about" page of the software.
⚠️ CSG is failing to honor its GPL obligations, say critics - The Register
「 Cloud Software Group – the post-merger offspring of Citrix and Tibco – has decided to withdraw the community edition of its JasperReports Server. Now all you can get is the commercial edition, with a 30-day free trial 」
New Open-Source N64 Flash Cart Imitates 64DD -- Time Extension (www.timeextension.com)
"The big selling point is that 64DD hardware support is baked into the cartridge. Other N64 flash carts already offer this functionality but require a custom OS to be installed – SummerCart64 will offer 64DD support right out of the box..."