[...] but what would be our world without BSD and Apple ? Better ? Worse ?
-- aliasbody
But we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing.
--RMS.
I suppose RMS does not need Apple OSX or iphone. I don't need those either.
Never have had anything Apple and
I misused some words but yes I was not totally wrong :D Thank you for
explaining me the rest I didn't had already understood.
Just one last question. I know how we can specify a licence for a software (I
already have done), but how can we do this for art ? For example, inside a
GPL project
Just one last question. I know how we can specify a licence for a
software (I already have done), but how can we do this for art ? For
example, inside a GPL project (game or software) what is the
difference between shareable PNG and a not shareable PNG ?
Usually such art isn't combined with
So that's it about Apple and innovation then.
Apple is a very nasty company¹ and the praise of Apple is completely and
totally unfounded. I can't to the best of my ability say anything good about
Apple. The best example of their overhyped products is iPhone. Come on, we
had mobile phones
В 18:10 +0200 на 25.09.2012 (вт), aliasb...@gmail.com написа:
I didn't knew it wasn't invented by Apple but by another enterprise :S...
Sorry for my mistake.
Well it is more accurate to say that they are involved with the project
in a major way than they invented it. According to Wikipedia,
What if you are a user that doesn't know how to decipher or read source
code?
It is irrelevant.
A citizen in a free society may never need to exercise his rights, lest even
know about them.
This doesn't mean his rights should cease to exist.
The point is those that want to exercise their
No matter the license, the whole concept is to give credit to where credit is
due for the author or entity that created the software through a form of
copyright. The top of GPLv3 and MIT license have a line for giving copyright
to the author.
What is confusing is that the GPL is about
I am getting sick of this. Just go and read ALL the writings on gnu.org
and fsf.org and if you still don't get it, Read Them again and again and
again. Like I did. Constantly think about it for one mouth. Don't let
your self not take note of other details so all you end up doing is
being stuck
So if software isn't supposed to have owners, why do their own licenses give
you the option to say Copyright 2012 ahj at the top? Software does have
owners or at least one main one that chooses to share with everyone.
This suggests to me that you have a very poor understanding of copyright.
This thread is at risk of being hijacked again by Magic Banana, so how about
we calm down a little bit? aliasbody took the time to make this thread and is
passionate about it, so respect him.
The issue of software adoption comes down to not only how good it is, but how
much it can serve
Here is a resource that I read after the previous post when I did some
further research on the licenses:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html#gpl-advantages
Magic Banana isn't the one who hijacked this thread.
1 - Isn't Chromium based on at least 5 different licences for a lot of code ?
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/c/chromium-browser/chromium-browser_21.0.1180.89~r154005-1/chromium-browser.copyright
lists all (and some are probably missing).
2 - If I created a codec and released
It depends on the scale of the project and its overall purpose if you have a
worry that people will steal. I listed jQuery which is under an MIT license
and I am not aware of any major forks. I know there is the unofficial Jqmobi
library, but that project's goal is to strip away features not
In a big project, for a big company I prefer to know that people could take
code but must respect the original licence (and not making my market die in a
few days because they have more resources than mine), than seeing a big
enterprise taking code and not contributing back.
In reality I
If you are using Apache 2.0 and have a NOTICE.txt file, it is not only
included with copies of your software, but if someone decides to add code to
it, it is required that the NOTICE.txt stays there and ackowledges any
previous authors according to section 4d:
If the Work includes a NOTICE
Each license has a purpose in what you want out of it. Do you not want to
make money from it, rely on donations or service plans, and scare away
companies from using it? Go with the GPL. Do you want to.give complete
freedom in how a user uses the software even if your creation may benefit
Give the code? The code is the application. The binary is for
convenience. Well if your offer a bad service don't expect your customer
to put up with it like they would stupidly with a proprietary program.
But then they also might have more patience because you gave them
freedom and if your
The so called freedom to restrict freedom? yuck what a load of rubbish.
You just want your own private monopoly. Which is unnecessary. GPLv3 and
say you require a fee. Make it easy (Bitcoin!). Use repos, so one's
update experience is not like m$ Dows.
On 23/09/12 09:09, a...@hannan-joyner.net
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
How exactly BSD is more free than GPL?
Imagine a programmer releasing software with BSD. Then another programmer
comes and change 1% of the program and makes it closed source proprietary
software. Now how can the original programmer have freedom with the software
containing 99% his code? I
Laws are necessary to protect and defend freedom. This is what GPL does. It
doesn't just protect your essential twenty first century liberties, it
guarantees them.
BSD based licenses are indeed free licenses, but they are not copyleft. So
while they do indeed provide freedom for both the
I don't like all these apps that can be instead done in HTML5 as a
website. Keep it in the web browser. That way I have more flexibility.
The forum is the same as the mailing list right? Then just use good old
email. I guess if the forum is naff to view on a small screen then why
not make a
I have been tempted to try GhostBSD, but I like the Ubuntu ecosystem with its
strong community and supported packages.
I was taking it from the freedom perspective of creating an application that
you distribute over the internet that anyone can use like nginx. People love
it and one day a
So take a look at where your life is right now. Are you a student or a
programmer who relies on donations and are doing this so you can fit in with
the bearded evangelists? Choose GPL. Are you trying to make money as a
software company either independent or the boss of a big company? Open
Open source = free software when using BSD or MIT. If that base application
and all of its code is under a free software compatible license, respects it,
and stays under it, that software will always be accepted as such. It follows
both the rules of the FSF and the OSI no matter how much you
Because everyone does that xD Your vision is very right and honest, and even
if I don't agree totally with it (at some points), I can't say that it is
totally false, and by that I can't do anything else then respect your point
of view.
But take any other enterprise as an example... let's
I agree with you here. People should have choice, and we can't force them.
But I also understand ahj's point of view, this is Free Software we are
talking about, and by this all his freedoms that we love, respect and want so
much (if I can say this in this way).
I love to point at the OsX
Open source = free software when using BSD or MIT
Open source = free software when using ANY free software license (i.e.
Apache, APSL, MIT, BSD, GPL etc).
Nearly all open source software is free software and vice-versa. The
difference between the two is political. Free software aims to
Having used other forums, I agree such an application might be generally
useful. Since this forum can be accessed as a mailing list, it's
probably easier on a phone than Web-only forums.
pgp5tUrTG6dAg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Don't use a GPL license and go with MIT or BSD so you have no complications
in getting the app accepted in Google Play in addition to F-Droid. I don't
want people to think I am anti-GPL because I am going for MIT instead. It's
just easier to get into the Apple and Google App Stores.
Never thought of that. I will have a look at the MIT and BSD licences. I was
thinking of adding an ad like my other Android Application (BodyIMC, quite a
good couple of years that I haven't done anything with that), and reversing
50% of the revenues (since the software would not exist if
I know that Apple won't accept GPL licensed apps on their app store just in
case you created an iPhone version.
Just be careful when using GPL code as there are more restrictions than a MIT
or BSD license. Some of the most important and useful software out or in the
near future like nginx or openstack or chromium go for a more permissive
license for wide adoption.
Each license has a purpose in what
Why couldn't I sell an application with a GPL Licence ? I've read the licence
rules and if I remember right, we only have to give the code when someone
buy the application, but this person has the right to do whatever he/she
wants with the application and the sources since it is his freedom.
Hello everyone,
I would want to know if anyone is interested on an Android application for
navigating, reading and answering on the Trisquel Gnu/Linux Forum only using
the phone ?
I was thinking of making anything like this but for a lot of forums, and then
when I started using Trisquel
36 matches
Mail list logo
