> On Dec 13, 2015, at 10:57, Gregory Casamento <greg.casame...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Maxthon, > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Maxthon Chan <xcvi...@me.com> wrote: > < snipped for brevity... > >> >> They exposed **every single** site functionality through the API (in fact, >> the Web interface itself uses the API to do its business, so it is safe to >> say that https://github.com/ is no more than one of the several available >> front-ends for https://api.github.com/) so https://api.github.com/ is >> satisfying this criteria. >> > > I believe you are egregiously and entirely missing the point regarding > what Richard is saying. Whether or not GitHub exposes the > functionality of the site via the API is COPLETELY immaterial to the > argument regarding whether or not it should be used according to the > FSF's rules. > > GitHub as a whole does not satisfy their criteria and that is what the > argument is about. > > The unfortunate part of this is that GitHub has been successful at > achieving a great deal of notoriety and going anywhere else would be > considered "obscure.”
My point is that the website you see at https://github.com URL is not the actual component of Github that handles the business. It is https://api.github.com/ that does all the heavylifting. >> Their website and API are license-blind. Github have a “choose a >> license” website that put GPL at the same level of recommendation as >> Apache 2.0 and MIT/X11 license. Due to **practical reasons** people >> are **avoiding** GPLv3 (you may need to check the reason why folks >> are doing this, or GPLv3 will soon become the license of past,) so their >> recommendation is GPLv2+ for GPL. > > I'm wondering where you get this impression. GPLv3 is not being > avoided by any means: > > http://techrights.org/2007/10/27/gplv3-growth-palamida/ > http://www.cnet.com/news/gplv3-hits-50-percent-adoption/ You may want to check more recent data. World economy, and hence people’s pay checks and donations, changed a lot from pre-crisis 2007 to in-crisis 2015. > A person is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. > The fact of the matter is, GPLv3 is extremely relevant when it comes > to fighting patents as well as many other things. While I, > personally, am no fan of it's incompatibility with GPLv2 (as it > adversely impacts some GNUstep apps due to those authors being > unwilling to re-license or even add a "or later") I do understand what > it's purpose is and why it's important. So, please, don't lie to > yourself or spread misinformation about it being a "thing of the past" > as it certainly isn’t. The Linux kernel, probably the single biggest GPL-licensed codebase, is GPLv2-only. GnuTLS, being another GNU package, relicensed itself, from LGPLv3+ to LGPLv2.1. And as of now the most popular free license is MIT/X11 and then followed by GPLv2, and then the list goes: Apache 2.0, 3-clause BSD then finally GPLv3. Please explain why the bulk of GPLv2-licensed projects are not moving to GPLv3. Also why more and more people are moving away from GPL-licensed GCC compiler in favour of a permissive-licensed LLVM/clang compiler? Apple stopped contributing their change back since GCC relicensed to GPLv3+. > GC > -- > Gregory Casamento > GNUstep Lead Developer / OLC, Principal Consultant > http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com > http://ind.ie/phoenix/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
