On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Tyler Romeo <tylerro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On February 9, 2015 at 15:17:22, Ryan Lane (rlan...@gmail.com) wrote: > You're implying that Apache2 licensed software is somehow not part of the > free software movement and that's absurd. Apache2 is technically a freer > license than GPLv(anything). Like GPL3, it also provides patent protection. > In practice it doesn't matter if software is forked and closed if the > canonical source isn't. The org that forks must maintain their fork and all > of their modifications without help. It's onerous and generally > unmaintainable for most orgs, especially if their core business isn't based > on the software, or if the canonical source is fast moving. > Please don’t spread misinformation to those who don’t know any better. The > goal of the free software movement is to ensure the freedoms of end users > to see the source code of the software they use. Any license that allows > distributors to deny users this right is not actually protecting the goal > of the movement. To be clear, software can be free without specifically > supporting the free software movement. > <flamebait> Your third sentence is a non-sequitur. Just because free software can be used in non-free ways doesn't defeat the goals of the free software movement (unless you believe that the free software movement really intends to displace all non-free software, in which case the movement is a complete failure). </flamebait> Ryan Kaldari _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
