|
|
|
|
|
|
by bad_user
4672 days ago
|
|
|
Well, I think RMS is wrong. The fact that these licenses cannot be used in certain contexts, such that commercial licensing is justified, does hint to them not being really open. Here's a quote by Linus Tolvards, when discussing GPLv2 versus GPLv3: GPLv2 in no way limits your use of the software. If you're a mad scientist, you can use GPLv2'd software for your evil plans to take over the world ("Sharks with lasers on their heads!!"), and the GPLv2 just says that you have to give source code back. And that's OK by me. I like sharks with lasers. |
|
|
And what does "really open" mean?
Software licenses exist to define situation the author can live with, and which ones he would be unhappy about. Some authors:
Do not care at all (WTFLicense).
Demands attributions, and would be unhappy if someone else falsely claim authorship of the authors software (MIT/BSD).
Demands that companies not go and backstab customers and sue them over patents for code they themselves have redistributed (Apache).
Demands the same as all above, but also that users get the source code of the program that they have bought/received. (GPLv2)
Demands the same as all above, but that users can actually use modified version of the source code. (GPLv3)
Demands the same as all above, but adds a clause about users of web services are equivalent to customers who buys software in the store? (AGPL)
So I must then ask, which one is the "really open"? Only WTFlicense? Only BSD/MIT and above?