From e1bf7b7643a0cd1bca00f67b081eac9c0d72a956 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom Marble Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 10:40:28 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] tmarble-on-sflc formatting --- .../is-slfc-shooting-open-source-in-the-foot.mdwn | 12 +++++++----- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) 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 adad669..39375b4 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 @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ 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 @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ 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. @@ -59,7 +59,9 @@ 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 +**Wat?** + +The entire *raison d'être* 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!!! @@ -77,9 +79,9 @@ The [latest SFLC 990 I could find][sflc-990-2013] shows SFLC getting 78% (or just over $5 million) from "non public support" (see page 14). A number with "two commas" would even be interesting to -for profit companies. Just *whom* is making these "donations" +for-profit companies. Just *whom* is making these "donations" and what exactly do they get in return? Apparently [I'm not the only one -wondering about this question][emacsen-on-slfc]. +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 -- 2.45.2