31–40 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No denying the influence of GNU, but have you noticed that commercially tolerant licenses are becoming more popular and businesses are some of the biggest producers of new major open source projects?
What are some examples of such licenses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No denying the influence of GNU, but have you noticed that commercially tolerant licenses are becoming more popular and businesses are some of the biggest producers of new major open source projects?
What are some examples of such licenses?
Reason #2 ("they make you sign the contributor agreement") is basically a declaration that the author doesn't understand US copyright law. If you are serious about keeping your code free, up to and including the ability to enforce its license in court, there are legal reasons to do this. At least, so says the FSF (and so do the IP lawyers I've talked to about it): http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AssignCopyri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. They're allowed to make $200,000 off of the community but other developers aren't? 2. That's not the problem. The problem is making developers sign a contract just to contribute to the project.
2. Open Source projects require that you sign your copyright away and assign it to them or offer them a license on compatible terms with their license. Signing a contract to assign your rights or offer your contribution under AGPL is standard fare. How many open source projects did you contribute to where you DIDN'T have to assign your rights? 1. They didn't "make" $200,000, they got $200,000 in donations, and yes, p…
The Linux kernel doesn't require copyright transfers. Most open source projects don't either (though many require a contributor license agreement).
Heh. The reasons given also explain why the GNU project has failed to release any influential software like GCC, the various GNU shell utilities, GNU Emacs, GDB and other such insignificant projects.
No denying the influence of GNU, but have you noticed that commercially tolerant licenses are becoming more popular and businesses are some of the biggest producers of new major open source projects?
Heh. The reasons given also explain why the GNU project has failed to release any influential software like GCC, the various GNU shell utilities, GNU Emacs, GDB and other such insignificant projects.
None of the projects listed above are AGPL-licensed. AGPL is egregious in its viral nature.
The reality is that this "virality" you're talking about is a perfectly reasonable authorship protection. It allows groups that want to claim firm ownership of a project to release its source code without worrying about ending up competing with a fork.
We all know, at least ever since Github made it cool, that forks are a desirable property of open source development. But it wasn't always looked on that way and sometimes it in fact isn't desirable. Perfect example: a company that wants to make a living selling a product. We're all better off if they publish their source code, but if they do it with straight GPL, it's going to end up used against them in someone's web app.
This is neither here nor there with respect to Diaspora. They may have made some claim about exactly how "open" their "openness" is intended to be. But it's simply not fair to suggest that the AGPL is an egregious license. "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" is an egregious license, and the most popular license in the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not anti-Free Software. I'm all for it. I make my living off of it, and I contribute regularly to open source projects. I'm anti-Overly-Restrictive-and-Innovation-Stifling-Licenses. You'll note that I recommended that the BSD license would be way more appropriate for this project.
Snarky translation: I'm all for embrace and extend of other peoples, just like late 90's Microsoft. Look at how well that worked for everyone. BSD licenses are great and all, but often lead to a situation where the original developers get used with little to no compensation in return in terms of code improvement or financial benefit. A great example of how annoying this can be to the original developers - look at the…
That is very deep and it applies to a LOT of different "markets," not just social networking. A truly open standard API for interoperability is a very different thing from a truly open standard implementation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
2. Open Source projects require that you sign your copyright away and assign it to them or offer them a license on compatible terms with their license. Signing a contract to assign your rights or offer your contribution under AGPL is standard fare. How many open source projects did you contribute to where you DIDN'T have to assign your rights? 1. They didn't "make" $200,000, they got $200,000 in donations, and yes, p…
>How many open source projects did you contribute to where you DIDN'T have to assign your rights? The Linux kernel doesn't require copyright transfers. Most open source projects don't either (though many require a contributor license agreement).
The business of Diaspora is just as green as the code of Diaspora, and requiring copyright transfer is a very sensible way of anticipating the inevitable pivots.