When you install flatpaks from the command line, there is no warning about what permissions will be used by that flatpak, and whether or not this is proprietary software. Again, much worse than what we are used to with regular packages.
No, you can't license my cat picture to Elon, Jack and Mark.
When you post on #Bluesky, #Twitter or #Meta you agree to grant them a very broad perpetual license to the content, including the right to sublicense. On Mastodon, most instances do not take a license. Any bridge that takes content from Mastodon and, without permission, puts that content on one of these platforms is violating that user's #copyright to the content. You can not #license content which you do not own.
Any insights how #fedora and #debian will handle the license change in #vagrant? I don't hope they would include BSL code in the distro, so… freeze the version of vagrant before the license change? Any prominent OSS fork already? #opensource#osi#license#freesoftware
People who know more about #oss#license then I do:
I think it really shouldn't be a issue to relicense code from the PHP 3.0 to the PHP 3.1 license, but would it also be possible to relicense it to MIT without contacting each author?
I don’t know what to think about it. Yes, it’s incredibly hard to create a business and a market when making everything open source. I’m not familiar with this new license and I don’t know if that’s a valid move or not.
The paper with that figure got accepted by a journal requiring a CCBy4 license.
What's the license of figures that we produce by using that R package? The code of the package is released under GPL3, but not clear to me if that applies also to the figures produced by me with that package.
❝Today, thanks to Android and ChromeOS, Linux is an important end-user operating system. But, before Linux, there were important Unix desktops, although most of them never made it. …❞
I don't understand Wikipedia's article Comparison of machine translation applications. Under "license" a lot of them just says SaaS. But Software as a service is not a license, it's a business modell or mode of distribution, right? It could be free with the AGPL license, for example, or proprietary. Both can be SaaS, that doesn't tell you anything about their license?
Open source licences are one of those cans of worms I mostly try to avoid. Except it really annoys me when I want to borrow some code and I can't work out what the licence is.
If you're writing sample code or something small, you should include a #licence. However which to use? One of the *BSD or MIT licences is usually a good choice (but be careful which version!), they place minimal requirements on you. However the requirement to include a copyright notice is just annoying for everyone involved (when the code is small). Android Toybox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toybox) solved this with the Zero-clause BSD licence (aka #0BSD); it is a modification of the ISC license, not a BSD one, but the name doesn't matter really.
While 0BSD may not be perfect, I believe it (or MIT-0, which is nearly identical) achieves the best balance of all the "do what you want" licences. I'm mainly talking about "small" pieces of code here; for larger projects it's understandable the licence choice is more nuanced and you may want Apache, #GPL, etc. This is not legal advice. Talk to a lawyer if in doubt.
Given that the latest #twittermigration to the #fediverse is apparently caused by Elmo wanting to be paid for the content being used for training of #LLMs (as was the case for the #redditdark selfown) - I wonder if we need a #creativecommons#license that explicitly denies such use.
If that is wanted by the author, one can still license in such ways in addition, I guess?
https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/hashicorp-adopts-business-source-license "However, there are other vendors who take advantage of pure OSS models [...] for their own commercial goals, without providing material contributions back. We don’t believe this is in the spirit of open source."
That is OSS! That's what happens most of the time! Contributing to OSS is facing the digital tragedy of the commons first-hand. IMO better define a business model with this assumption, than to relicense and make a bad impression.
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”.
Good&Evil is a classic altrock album by Tally Hall, and now, for something completely different, JSON
How should LICENSE relationships be?
Hello,...