> you were arguing against the fact that you cannot make up some arbitrary
> license that does not meet the standards of the FSF's free software
> definition or the OSI open source definition and in good faith call that
> open source. that's not RMS's arbitrary rules, that's what OSS is all
about.
> sorry, I share your reservations about the thinking behind the FSF, but I
> don't get that rant.
The BSD camp sees open source software software where the source is
open and it has a non-restrictive license. That more or less clashes with
how FSF sees open source software. It's beyond the scope of the topic
though.
IMHO what RMS thinks and what FSF thinks what open source is is
really irrelevant. A person writes code, opens that for everyone and allows
everyone to use it and distribute it under a list of restrictions. If you
then don't obey one or more FSF rules, who cares, it's your code, not FSF's.
If it's not compliant with some FSF list of rules and 'thus' it's not OSS is
pure politics and actually also marketing: the source is important the list
of rules when you're allowed to use it.
FB
>
> ________________________________________
> From: [email protected] [nhibernate-
> [email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 23:18
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?)
>
> > many OSS developers are both. and to a degree, I understand it.
>
> I don't, as both have nothing in common.
>
> > a lot of thought has been put into the FOSS thing. now if anybody can
> claim
> > any arbitrary license to be FOSS, that's just destroying a trade mark.
>
> I don't see why it's so important to obey the rules of RMS, is it
a
> coolness thing or something?
>
> Yes I'm a BSD sympathizer, I really don't get why software
licensing
> has to be used to push the agenda of 'property is evil'.
>
> FB
>
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: [email protected] [nhibernate-
> > [email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 22:11
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?)
> >
> > > You could craft your own license, but a license that forbids
> > > commercial usage is not a FOSS license by either FSF or OSI standards.
> > > you do that
> > and
> > > call your software OSS, you better avoid certain people afterwards
> > > ;-)
> >
> > heh :)
> >
> > but, at the same time, people who nittpick over that are not
> > developers but politicians with an agenda that has little to do with
> > software engineering.
> >
> > FB
> >
> > >
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: [email protected] [nhibernate-
> > > [email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 20:28
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?)
> > >
> > > > > The AGPL is also the preferred license for dual licensing
> > > > (we do that).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > any license is suitable for that, you own the code,
> > > > you
> > > decide
> > > > how
> > > > to license it. You can distribute it under 10 licenses, it's
> > > > your work, you
> > > > decide.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Actually no.
> > > > Consider RavenDB as a good example. AGPL pretty much says that if
> > > > you are building commercial apps, you are going to pay for the
> license.
> > > > Nothing else would do that.
> > >
> > > Of course it would, any piece of text you use as a license
> > > for distribution and usage of the sourcecode for others which states
> > > the user can only create non-commercial applications with the
> > > sourcecode and always has to disclose full sourcecode will do
> > > (actually, the non-commercial
> > remark
> > > is enough). Remember, you own the code and you decide. Without a
> > > license, another person isn't even legally able to download the
> > sourcecode.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I was talking about dual licensing conflicts. Some
> > > people believe the dual licensing can only happen if both licenses
> > > are
> > compatible,
> > > as otherwise contributing is problematic. But for code owners, that
> > > is of course a non-issue.
> > >
> > > FB===
