On 11.01.2017 11:00, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote:
Am 11.01.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was
writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should
have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does
not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to
anything that uses their licenses.
The difference between the Apache Licence and the licences, which are
promoted by the FSF, is the so called "Copyleft". The Apache licence has
no copyleft.
But copyleft gives the programmer more and not less control, because
nobody can make a proprietary (non free) product of the code without the
permission of the copyright holder (programmer).
I do not think copyleft gives you more control. You omit your copy
rights in favour of copy left.
Multi Licens policies are only possible if your developer team agrees on
this model right from the start.
If you try to build one afterwards, I would expect at least
difficulties, or even risks if your documentation on contributors is to
sloppy.
That is why some supporters of copyleftless licence say, that these
licences are more free than licence containing a copyleft.
That is a question, whether you are the user or the creator of the code.
For an enduser of the code copyleft brings potentially more freedom.
Endusers do not care about license policy in general. See the closed
source drivers in the Kernel. There was somewhat pressure to resolve it,
but a lot of pressure not to sentence it.
Also you can see in our Community that the Apache License is not a major
topic to them. Functionality is the major point. I think it is even less
important for users which license a software has then data security.
If you are a developer, using code under a copyleftless licence is much
easier. But if you are the programmer of the used code, you have more
control, what people do with your product.
I think the license model is much tied to your business modell. If you
are able to build services around code, the protection of the copy left,
makes you more secure on the market. Since no one can break out.
If your model works directly with the Product, the flexibility of the
Permissive license can be the stronger choice.
I do not believe that a lot of people understand this. There is this
Idea floating around copy left == communism, which I think is not true.
It depends on the organisation of the community.
Kind regards
Michael
Thanks michael for your explanations. Was really interesting, even if I
have another point of view :-D
All the best
Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
