X-Git-Url: http://info9.net/gitweb/?p=wiki.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=tmarble%2Fposts%2Fis-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn;h=612a0b92d12f8b143aca1034b3d376dbabdbe90b;hp=39375b4e034777ddbc8357449164591d407cb252;hb=HEAD;hpb=e1bf7b7643a0cd1bca00f67b081eac9c0d72a956 diff --git a/tmarble/posts/is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn b/tmarble/posts/is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn index 39375b4..612a0b9 100644 --- a/tmarble/posts/is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn +++ b/tmarble/posts/is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn @@ -21,9 +21,12 @@ make open source possible. It's the free software license which uses copyright to *enable* sharing (vs. the default of *disabling* sharing). +
+
-Open Source Licenses +Open Source Licenses +
And so I have appreciated many of the writings and speeches from SFLC on the mechanisms of software freedom. I was @@ -46,7 +49,7 @@ court that the "you know, the software license was really about the spirit of sharing and that means we are allowed to use it -- and not be held to the pesky details as written in the license". -A lawyer I respect called this out: ["Equity" has no place in US law"][pchestek-on-sflc]. The point is that for lawyers software licenses work because +A lawyer I respect called this out: ["Equity" has no place in US law][pchestek-on-sflc]. The point is that for lawyers software licenses work because they have clear, written rules to guarantee the spirit is upheld; but spirit doesn't work in front of a judge -- clear rules do. @@ -59,9 +62,12 @@ of the license". Especially given the earlier comment which clearly states "[the combination] is inconsistent with the literal meaning of GPLv2 section 2(b)." +
**Wat?** +
+
-The entire *raison d'être* for open source software licenses +The entire [*raison d'être*][raison] for open source software licenses was so that developers (and users) would have clarity and wouldn't have to *ask permission* to use the software!!! @@ -85,9 +91,9 @@ wondering about this question][emacsen-on-sflc]. On one hand it's important to know if SFLC as a non-profit is, indeed, acting in the public interest (as the IRS requires). Yet the even -bigger issue here is would "asking for a consensus about the spirit" +bigger issue here is **would "asking for a consensus about the spirit" trump the written copyright license and set a scary precedent for open -source software in general? +source software in general?** [[!tag sflc gpl cddl zfs floss]] @@ -96,6 +102,7 @@ source software in general? [webmink-on-cddl]: https://blogs.oracle.com/webmink/entry/choice_of_venue [cddl]: https://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0 [freedombox]: https://freedomboxfoundation.org -[pchestek-on-sflc]: https://twitter.com/pchestek/status/703704091227246593 +[pchestek-on-sflc]: https://twitter.com/pchestek/status/703933428341805056 [sflc-990-2013]: http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/412/412165986/412165986_201401_990.pdf [emacsen-on-sflc]: http://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2016/02/28/why-is-sflc-siding-with-oracle-over-linux-developers/ +[raison]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raison_d'%C3%AAtre