Conversation
Notices
-
@fontana you're right of course. more carefully said: proprietary relicensing requires one entity to hold monopoly on a non-copyleft license
Wednesday, 10-Nov-10 13:16:06 UTC from web-
@fabsh: Even if they are making money from the kernel, they aren't making it by withholding functionality, so it's not Open Core. Right?
-
@oddbloke As far as I understand the issue, you are correct.
-
@lxoliva And you seem to be arbitrarily changing the meaning of terms to fit your agenda. And then claiming other people are confused.
-
@lxoliva Hmmm.... So if even LWN doesn't understand what you mean by a press release, maybe you should work on the wording.
-
@fabsh “combines proprietary code with open source code, where “the commercial license is a super-set of the open source product...” -Aslett
-
@fabsh “i.e., it offers premium product features that you will not see in the GPL license”.” -Aslett
-
@lxoliva There is no commercial license for the Linux kernel AFAIK. It's GPLv2 period.
-
@fabsh AFAICT LWN understood it just fine. Linux is indeed Open Core
-
@fabsh commercial is a term very often (including in this case) misused to refer to the opposite of open source
-
@fabsh Linux is GPLv2 except where it isn't, as in the mentioned blobs and a bunch of others. distros are Free except where they aren't.
Clacke Moved to Unlimited and Ted Smith like this. -
@fabsh oh, and GPLv2 is as much of a commercial license as a non-commercial one. Free vs non-Free is orthogonal to commercial vs gratis
-
@fabsh Linux and GNU/Linux distros are offered commercially all the time, you know
-
♻ @lxoliva Linux is GPLv2 except where it isn't, as in the mentioned blobs and a bunch of others. distros are Free except where they aren't.
-
@fontana there might be, but trying to redefine it just so that Linux and distros don't fit it would be... deceptive, IMNSHO
-
@fontana they're surely defended as “having or reflecting superior quality or value”, and they cost you your freedom
-
@fontana how about blobs for Intel WiFi that Red Hat adds, at no additional charge, to RHE[G]L. not premium add-ons either?
-
@fontana I don't see such a definition of the premium adjective in a dictionary
-
@fontana still, they only cost nothing if one's freedom is regarded as worthless
-
@fontana are they not high-value for Red Hat's customers? why does Red Hat refuse to take them out?
-
@fontana they're highly-valued features. without the blobs in RHE[G]L, those WiFi cards (allegedly) won't work at all
-
@fontana some would say they're enterprisey features ;-)
-
@fontana /me raises hand
-
@fontana consider the non-Free fonts (that used to be?) in RHE[G]L extra CD. premium or not premium?
-
@fontana I say they're premium, because they are presented as a valuable advantage of the system over those that don't carry them
-
@fontana and, what's more, the hardware vendor has been paid for the hardware and firmware
-
@fontana the premium feature is that you don't have to go grab the hardware-accompanying media for the hardware to work
-
@fontana and we are helping them take freedom away from our customers :-( presenting the non-Free stuff as advantageous, premium :-(
-
@fontana non-Free features in popular GNU+Linux distros are also covered in the article, under the very same Free Bait reasoning
-
@fontana also, make it Free Bait. even if Open Core turns out to be narrower than we read, Free Bait covers non-Free but gratis
-
@fontana innocent inclusion can be fixed at the time the problem is found out; commitment to do so (or opposite, or nothing) matters
-
-
@lxoliva,I commented on @lwnnet thread: http://ur1.ca/2bc0p It's my balanced view; I don't fully agree w/ you, but I do support !LinuxLibre
-
@bkuhn thinking may lack imagination on other possible ways of getting this boneheaded play done.
-
@bkuhn now you appear to require proprietary relicensing for Open Core. I don't see that requirement
-
@bkuhn proprietary add-ons don't always require relicensing of the Free core, as Linux and GNU/Linux distros show
-
@lxoliva, I don't "require" anything re: #Open_Core. I've actually become convinced the phrase is too confusing to use as an analysis term.
-
@bkuhn Question: if programmer licences code under GPL and emails it to one person, does programmer have any further responsibilities?
-
@fontana I'd rather work on Free Bait defn, such that OCL = Free Bait with Commercial non-Free Trap
-
@bkuhn Solely owned, one off piece of work, emailed as source, ready to compile, along with link to GPL licence.
-
@bkuhn Someone I know asked for a specific application and that's what she received. It was done gratis. No contract involved
-
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the