On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 15:34 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Riley Baird wrote: > > > Not necessarily. It could mean that you want to be as compatible > with > > as many open-source licenses as possible. > > The Apache licenses don't fit that definition of "permissive" but > they > do fit the definition suggested by Ritesh and the definition used on > Wikipedia and the one used by the GNU project. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_free_software_licence > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#LaxPermissiveLicensedS > oftware
I started thinking about this after reading the recent LWN article. http://lwn.net/Articles/660428/ A couple years ago, for one of the software that I maintain in Debian, there was an outcry to change its license. It was initially licensed AGPL, and in view of some, seen restrictive. Eventually, it got re-licensed to Apache Software License 2.0. I did not pay much attention then, but I always have believed that the FSF have done a great job in ensuring user freedom. It is a different state now, now that the concept of Free Software has become successful commercially, and many people/organizations have found different ways to circumvent that freedom, if it is conflicting their needs. There was another article I stumbled upon: https://www.blackducksoftware.com/files/webmedia/_webinars/2013_06_25_U nderstanding%20the%20LGPL%20and%20AGPL.pdf This one talks about GNU AGPL, the license that the software I maintain, used earlier. Honestly, I can't see a reason why AGPL would be bad, in the spirit of Free Software. I think the world is changing now. 15 years ago, when I started, GPL was the license. Then, Free Software itself was young and not very successful commercially. Then, over the years, things started changing. People valued user freedom. Many people worked on improving software, sharing changes, benefiting everyone. But as and when Linux and Free Software caught momentum and became (commercially) a giant, most people/organizaitons resisted the idea of giving back, something that the license mandates in a way. I think what Riley said is true in theory, but is it really true in spirit? Take Android userspace. I guess nothing there is open. Even the kernel can have binary blobs, and we, the users, are left out. Even HP, in the LWN article, mentions that. Getting a project to be commercially viable, mandates that it has room to be made proprietary. Otherwise, chances of organization embracing and collaborating on it is zilch. When I briefly worked on Openstack, I signed the CLA. I believe that too is derived of ASL. It turns out most people find GPL type licenses too restrictive these days. Just that who is it "restrictive" for ? But then some positive things to see too. To the best of my knowledge, one of the pressing reasons for the birth of systemd (and not, instead, collaborating on Upstart) was the license and the CLA. -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
