Steffen Nurpmeso(stef...@sdaoden.eu) on 2017.03.24 14:03:45 +0100:
> Bob Beck <b...@obtuse.com> wrote:
>   ...
> 
> Disclaimer: i have read about licenses many years ago (likely over
> a decade, i stopped reading the german computer magazine c't
> somewhen in 2005).  I like and use the ISC license that your
> project has chosen and fosters whenever i can.
> 
> According to [1] the chosen license is however the "best" academic
> license, and the only one which allows patent protection.  Best in
> sofar as all tested items are green.  The Mozilla license was
> surely not possible?
> 
>   [1] http://www.osscc.net/en/licenses.html#compatibility
> 
> Interesting to me is that this is the third time this year that
> this topic comes up, in January i had a private communication with
> J??rg Schilling (who provided this link, again), i think a month
> ago there was a thread on the Austrian Linux User list, and now we
> have this one.
> 
>   ...
>  |thats really not cool
> 
> As far as i understand it, using the Apache license gives more
> protection to end users than the current license does, at least if
> patents get involved.
> 
>   ..
>  |> Apparently lawyers are being paid to help them push this through.  Is
>  |> that being paid for by donations people gave after Heartbleed?  Is
>  |> this why people donated?
> 
> The license is even better for end-users as the current license?

But it's not about "this licence is better than that licence".
The code has a licence and they dont respect that.

It's about "You cannot change the licence without consent of the author" and
"We just assume that you say yes to this because we dont care about your
rights", which is morally and legally wrong.

/B

Reply via email to