11–20 of 127 posts
On one hand, I ask myself what I would have done if I worked at IBM in the 1930s[0]
On the other hand, as an LGBT person, I firmly believe that maximal freedom of speech protects vulnerable people from erasure.
What this means for free software is a tough question.
As much as I hate what Russia is doing, I’d hate even more for software to come under political purviews. If an author of a library chooses to apply political condition(however justified they may be), then the software is simply not free by definition. I’m neither Russian nor Ukrainian. I cannot turn a blind eye simply because it doesn’t apply to me. What if another library that I use apply a license that says “those…
Really? Making software free is just about as political as it gets. Restricting that freedom, as happens here, is equally political. I guess you just don't this special kind of politics in your software.
Edit: maybe this?
> Terraform-AWS-modules/Terraform-AWS-eks restricts license for Russian/Belarussian users
As much as I hate what Russia is doing, I’d hate even more for software to come under political purviews. If an author of a library chooses to apply political condition(however justified they may be), then the software is simply not free by definition. I’m neither Russian nor Ukrainian. I cannot turn a blind eye simply because it doesn’t apply to me. What if another library that I use apply a license that says “those…
The author is entitled to use whatever license they want, and the community is entitled to a fork if it doesn't violate the previous license. That's all there is to it. the author doesn't owe the community anything, and the community, as long as they respect the terms of the previous license, is free to fork the project and get rid of the new license.
In general, these political stunts eventually reflect badly on their author. Open source is a double edged sword.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is adding "Additional terms of use" not a license change? That's not just a "statement of support".
IANAL, but afaik, copyright licenses can only ever affect (re)distribution - not use.
That being said, your average EULA has about 4000x more clauses in it than it needs to be, because they don't expect anyone to read them and those clauses are rarely, if ever, enforceable. FOSS licenses tend to be short and easily readable because they are written by people who want you to know what they entail. Proprietary EULAs tend to be forked from some internal corporate list of legal requirements that get copypasted everywhere.
My favorite example of this is the clause in iTunes - a music store - that prohibits you from designing nuclear weapons with it. Second favorite is the LICENSE file included in all Swift Playgrounds example code, which has about 2 actual provisions Apple cares about (don't resell the sample code in the app and don't hack people with Swift Playgrounds), and a hundred clauses copypasted from the iPadOS EULAs that I've already agreed to. As far as I can tell, nobody at Apple is actually going to care if an individual user does something that technically breaches the EULA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is adding "Additional terms of use" not a license change? That's not just a "statement of support".
since it only affects use, not redistribution, am I allowed to redistribute this, without the additions to the apache licence ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
since it only affects use, not redistribution, am I allowed to redistribute this, without the additions to the apache licence ?
If you can point to license text that allows you to strip additions, then yes.
This licences requires that I distribute with: all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices, and of course a copy of the apache licence.
it says nothing about additional use conditions in the readme.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL, but afaik, copyright licenses can only ever affect (re)distribution - not use.
Only iff the copyrighted work was "sold" and not "licensed". There has been a huge effort on the part of copyright holders to avoid "selling" things, and make "sold" software legally unusable without a corresponding license agreement. Once you exit the realm of a "sale", there are very few restrictions on what you can require of your licensees. Freedom Zero restrictions are absolutely on the table, as well as curtail…
I didn't believe you.... then I looked it up Sub bullet (g)
" You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture, or production of nuclear, missile, or chemical or biological weapons."
https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/dev/std...