Conversation
Notices
-
Can somebody explain me how a permissive software license like apache can bring the software to a “much wider audienc…
-
Under #Apache license, the taker is not obliged to contribute modifications to the code; whereas under !GPL, the taker must contribute back
-
@sweet that's because he's primary business man, not software freedom defender :)
-
ok, who make your source code partially proprietary will bring it to a “much wider audience”? I’m really disappoi…
-
I like to think he is a money slave :S
-
Well, most businesses do have a different objective, and that is to make money. They’ll do everything they can to be …
-
Only if the taker distributes her changed version to other people. The GPL does not require people to publish their private changes.
Gary Wright likes this. -
yes, but the issues is: they are distributing that partially propietary code :(
-
keep in mind too that many writers have a hidden capitalist agenda & GPL's more difficult to enforce in the nascent #cloud services paradigm
-
"Only if the taker distributes her changed version to other people." which is the business scenario & becomes more complicated in the #cloud
-
If somebody wont’d share under the same “freetard” license because “somebody else can take advantage of you wor…
-
yeah, I just guess that when I read some comments on the news article… capitalism :-/
-
I mean *they are
-
If you don't contribute them (show your source code) you violate #GPL http://ur1.ca/fisf
-
IRL, 'make modifications' means 'make and publish them'; 'permissive licensing' allows you to republish even under a proprietary license.
-
@metztli FUD! you're free to keep your changes to yourself, that's GPL compliant.
-
@metztli if you *choose* to distribute your changes to others in binary form, you need only provide *them* with sources != contribute
-
"you need only provide *them* with sources [☚and that is not contributing?] != contribute"
-
@metztli A's contribution to B happens when A gives code to B, not to a third party C
-
@metztli while sending code back upstream is regarded as contributing, sending it only downstream is more like forking
-
"Our clients licensed BusyBox under… #GPL to ensure that [C || C∈B] of the program can access/modify its source code" http://ur1.ca/86s6t
-
@metztli the C∈B is entirely your own groundless speculation. nothing in GPL requires distributor to offer the sw to co-contributors
-
"C∈B is entirely your own groundless speculation" ;D
-
![JC Sese-Cuneta (謝施洗) [SN]](http://avatar3.status.net/i/identica/527417-48-20120514114428.png){kind=small}
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the