fsi, to random

The General Public License (GPL) is unfortunately not suited for electronic devices and silicon chips in particular. We would like therefore to develop a GPL-compatible hardware licence.

Are you interested to submit a tender? Then do so by July 3:

https://wiki.f-si.org/index.php?title=Tender_for_GPL-compatible_hardware_licence_development

fsf, to random
@fsf@hostux.social avatar

Does the #GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt

fsf, to random
@fsf@hostux.social avatar

In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing

fsf, to random
@fsf@hostux.social avatar

In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing

travisfw, to random
@travisfw@fosstodon.org avatar

I just realized we're missing a really big opportunity here. We should have an LLM trained on all-GPL code. And obviously, EVERYTHING it produces is licensed !

lhinderberger, to foss
@lhinderberger@mastodontech.de avatar

I might have to rethink my stance on " all the way".

Due to the highly scriptable nature of the static site generator that I'm building, site code (or even entire sites) may fall under copyleft, and that's not what I want. I've had a look at the , but for my use case, it still sounds too strict. I'm also not keen on writing my own license exception, and I doubt it'd keep enough protections to make GPLing worthwhile in the first place. So I'm afraid 2.0 is my best bet?

fsf, to random
@fsf@hostux.social avatar

Does the #GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt

po3mah, to ai
@po3mah@mastodon.social avatar

I've just noticed Cults3D's license: NO AI.
Good.


kravemir,
@kravemir@hometech.social avatar

@po3mah I do wonder, whether these license terms are even respected.

And, what's opinion of and on this.

And, if like are implicitly no-AI, because derivative work made by AI would be require the same license to be used.

fsf, to random
@fsf@hostux.social avatar

Does the #GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt

fsf, to random
@fsf@hostux.social avatar

In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing

ramsey, to random
@ramsey@phpc.social avatar

This is part of the reason I couldn’t get to a good place (mentally) in order to do a real “Saving Open Source” talk at #PHPTek:

From @geerlingguy: “2024 is the year corporate open source died”

https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2024/corporate-open-source-dead

ramsey,
@ramsey@phpc.social avatar

Maybe it’s just time to say “fuck it” and all the things?

The movement was a response to corporate skittishness around using , and it focused on very permissive licenses to make corporations feel more comfortable using it. Maybe that turned out to be the wrong approach. Maybe the helped create the problem.

If the OSI helped create it, encouraged and exacerbated it.

aud, to opensource

uggghhhhhh I finally have to license something

I’m not naive; a license is as effective as pissing in the wind if you don’t have the means to enforce it. Still, any recommendation on licenses to make it as difficult as possible for people like Palmer Luckey or dtolnay to benefit from it, in general??

Permissive is good, I don’t care whether it matches a libertarian definition of “open”.

fsf, to random
@fsf@hostux.social avatar

In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing

coffee2Di4,
@coffee2Di4@glasgow.social avatar

@fsf
I remember the original well. It changed how I think about how to work within existing systems to effect change.

holarse, to linux German
@holarse@mastodon.social avatar
LaF0rge, to random
@LaF0rge@chaos.social avatar

In recent years (since 2018) there were a number of court cases in China related to the #GPL and other copyleft licenses. For a (chinese) list/summary, see https://www.openatom.org/law/database - the only sad part is that all of them about damages claims between companies; no community-oriented enforcement.

happyborg, to foss
@happyborg@fosstodon.org avatar

If your project is #MIT, #BSD or #Apache #FOSS, you are now probably one of the bad guys.

If you don't know why this is bad: #Redis

Same for contributing to projects with permissive licensing.

As copyright owner of a project you can be a good guy again: switch to #GPL

Also stop contributing to other projects that won't switch, after politely explaining why you have a problem with their #licensing.

And avoid using those projects when you can.

#OpenSource

bkrawczyk,

@happyborg if you wish, publish your code on whichever license you want.

Stop shaming and blaming developers that donate their time and code to everybody.

Not everybody wants a viral license.

Your toot is harmful. Shaming and blaming others will have an effect of them not giving a damn about open source. is not the answer to everything. There are dozens of licenses to choose from. Why do you try to polarize the community?

fsf, to random
@fsf@hostux.social avatar

Does the require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt

markhughes, to foss
@markhughes@mastodon.social avatar

We now understand why permissive #licensing is bad for #FOSS.

#Redis taught us why #GPL is important and #MIT, #Apache, #BSD etc allow corporations to enclose and steal our contributions.

#Israel's use of #Lavender for targeting in #Gaza, which may also use the code we donated to the commons, shows that we need to be more restrictive if we want to avoid assisting war crimes and probable #genocide.

I hope some lawyers are on this, and will help us add exclusions to protect from such use.

aral, to random
@aral@mastodon.ar.al avatar

GPL is only “viral” if you think freedom is a disease.

fluxwatcher,
@fluxwatcher@mastodon.social avatar

@aral Nobody forces you to use non GPL-licensed projects.
Be a consistent person and stop using them 😉

#license #gpl #bsd

fsf, to random
@fsf@hostux.social avatar

Does the require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt

BrodieOnLinux, to linux
@BrodieOnLinux@linuxrocks.online avatar

The Open Source Software Supply Chain Isn't REAL!! https://youtu.be/yt0S_xN5b94

nicemicro,
@nicemicro@fosstodon.org avatar

@BrodieOnLinux in my opinion, we should blame it on the BSD / MIT style licenses that require nothing from downstream.

Corporations have access to thousands of libraries at no cost and no restrictions... People in general don't appreciate things that come easy, and tend to be irresponsible towards those things.

Does the added unpaid maintenance burden worth it now, that due to choosing MIT vs GPL, hundreds of proprietary junk use your code? I don't think so.

#FreeSoftware #GPL

ArneBab,
@ArneBab@rollenspiel.social avatar

@nicemicro there’s something more: on corporate-owned servers (⇒ "software as a service") the #GPL (v2 or later) does not guarantee effective copyleft.

To have copyleft with server-side software you need to use the #AGPL (v3 or later).

@BrodieOnLinux

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • JUstTest
  • mdbf
  • ngwrru68w68
  • modclub
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • khanakhh
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • Durango
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • megavids
  • GTA5RPClips
  • ethstaker
  • normalnudes
  • tester
  • osvaldo12
  • everett
  • cubers
  • tacticalgear
  • anitta
  • provamag3
  • Leos
  • cisconetworking
  • lostlight
  • All magazines