Slashdot Mirror
The Free Software Foundation Releases New Comments About Licenses (fsf.org)
"We recently published a number of updates to our licensing materials," the Free Software Foundation announced Thursday, adding that "While we generally post individual announcements for these types of important changes, there were so many in such a short span that we needed to combine them all in one place."
We added the Commons Clause to our list of nonfree licenses. Not a stand-alone license in and of itself, it is meant to be added to an existing free license to prevent using the work commercially, rendering the work nonfree. It's particularly nasty given that the name, and the fact that it is attached to pre-existing free licenses, may make it seem as if the work is still free software.
If a previously existing project that was under a free license adds the Commons Clause, users should work to fork that program and continue using it under the free license. If it isn't worth forking, users should simply avoid the package. We are glad to see that in the case of Redis modules using the Commons Clause, people are stepping up to maintain free versions.
There's also a new addition to their GNU Licenses FAQ which explains what the GNU GPL says about translating code into another programming language. ("If the original program carries a free license, that license gives permission to translate it. How you can use and license the translated program is determined by that license. If the original program is licensed under certain versions of the GNU GPL, the translated program must be covered by the same versions of the GNU GPL...") And they've also clarified how to handle projects that combine code under multiple compatible licenses.
The FSF has also updated a document commenting on various licenses, clarifying that the Fraunhofer FDK AAC free software license "is incompatible with any version of the GNU GPL. It has a special danger in the form of a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses, with an enticement to buy some.
"Because of this, and because the license author is a known patent aggressor, we encourage you to be careful about using or redistributing any software under this license..."
If a previously existing project that was under a free license adds the Commons Clause, users should work to fork that program and continue using it under the free license. If it isn't worth forking, users should simply avoid the package. We are glad to see that in the case of Redis modules using the Commons Clause, people are stepping up to maintain free versions.
There's also a new addition to their GNU Licenses FAQ which explains what the GNU GPL says about translating code into another programming language. ("If the original program carries a free license, that license gives permission to translate it. How you can use and license the translated program is determined by that license. If the original program is licensed under certain versions of the GNU GPL, the translated program must be covered by the same versions of the GNU GPL...") And they've also clarified how to handle projects that combine code under multiple compatible licenses.
The FSF has also updated a document commenting on various licenses, clarifying that the Fraunhofer FDK AAC free software license "is incompatible with any version of the GNU GPL. It has a special danger in the form of a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses, with an enticement to buy some.
"Because of this, and because the license author is a known patent aggressor, we encourage you to be careful about using or redistributing any software under this license..."
I don't think a translated program is a derived work. If I draw a picture of a picture, the original artist has entitlements to it?
All these licenses are basically bait-and-switch plays. They seem to provide a little freedom but there's always a catch.
Only go with GPL for real freedom!!
ah for the hedy days of GPL2.
Needs more CoCs and balls, imho
The Free Software Foundation may want this to be true, but I doubt that it's legally sound. Copyright covers copying, not translating.
i think the clause that everybody is afraid of but hasn't been included yet, is that clause that states that you can do whatever you want with the code but you have state that there indeed is a totally free version of the code you are trying to rape for profit : ]
If you really want your code to be free, abandon licenses altogether. All you're doing is increasing the probability that some lawyer will get a new Porsche. Instead, say that you're giving the code away, no restrictions, no rights reserved, no credit required, period — and then have the stones to stick to your word.
You will never get away from these parasites until you stop enabling them.
One more thing: if you demand credit, that's a required payment, and what you're doing is not free. People may give you credit on their own, and that's fine, but the former is just another way to throw sand in the gears of progress. Progress is what moves us all forward. Aim there.
But what is the Fraunhofer FDK AAC you ask?
Fraunhofer FDK AAC (Full title Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android) is an open-source[5] software library for encoding and decoding Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) format audio, developed by Fraunhofer IIS, and included as part of Android. It supports several Audio Object Types including MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 AAC LC, HE-AAC (AAC LC + SBR), HE-AACv2 (LC + SBR + PS) as well AAC-LD (low delay) and AAC-ELD (enhanced low delay) for real-time communication. The encoding library supports sample rates up to 96 kHz and up to eight channels (7.1 surround).[6]
You're welcome internet.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
This is a ridiculous waste of effort just because somebody might be able to use the source under the "wrong" license. The CC isn't a very good license for software development, but if it's licensed under multiple licenses, just use the license that best suits you and be done with it. It's not like changing the license on these projects is particularly viable.
So by the same logic, a compiled executable of GPL code isn't covered by the GPL anymore ?
See because a compiler is also translating, merely to machine code.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
... anything "open source" means "I can take this and use it however I please and never mention where I got it from". This is how people think and how things are in reality.
It has always baffled me to see how much time and effort is spent on wording/changing/talking about all these "licenses" that nobody cares about anyway. If the source code is available, it's going to be taken and used. Please understand that humans are vile, egotistical creatures. If you truly want "free" software, you wouldn't have any license whatsoever.
Typically, I only use Creative Commons licensing on artistic works, such as pictures, music, or movies. There are plenty of examples of Facebook posts ending up in commercial products (another reason not to use social media).
For programs and scripts, I use GPLv3. Hadn't even considered using Creative Commons, as it isn't much of a license.
The anti-corporatist communists who think all software should be free up until the point a big corporation figures out how to make profit will be apoplectic.
Let's look at this more closely, recast to make the point:
So we have established (at least for anyone who can think their way out of a paper bag) that "the law" isn't always in the right, nor should it be supported when it clearly isn't.
Turns out, when you support bad law, you are the culprit working to keep it in play. When the system is corrupt, you fight it, or you are the system. And while it means that you are "legally in the right", it also means that you are working against everyone else's best interests.
Someone else had this to say about it:
We've been through this discussion throughout the 1980s and 1990s and there's no clear way to do this without licensing, even if only to forgo the very powers you say one should forgo.
If you relinquish all copyright power in the work (say by putting it under Creative Commons Zero which is effectively placing the work into the public domain in the US and like regimes, and forgoing all copyright power in other regimes) you won't have anything to "stick to". If someone does something with the code you could have objected to on copyright grounds you will have forwent that power. If you want to object to something based on patent power (with any patents you hold which could read on the work) you'll need licensing to grant others the freedom to use those patent ideas—to forgo that power too.
So it only makes sense to talk about "sticking to your word" if you have something to stick to. For instance, one thing you might want to stick to is looking out for the software freedom for derivative works so that you ensure the software freedom you carefully chose to respect remains intact when someone builds on that code and distributes their derivative. This too requires the licensing power you eschew with attention paid to copyright and patent power (possibly more).
I think your willingness to publish more free software is helpful but more needs to be said and done to make your view practical. Yours is a rather inchoate expression of (perhaps) frustration with the complexity of what one needs to do to come close to forgetting about legalistic considerations and enjoy one's time spent programming. But what you've offered is not a practical way to look at the world as it is and has been for decades.
Digital Citizen
A non-issue here. Interest in the GPL vs MIT vs closed source licensing will decrease as the early proponents age and retire.
Expect a shrill set of voices for the next few years as the early proponents feel they get less and less recognition/face time for this debate.
It's a few pages in the software history book now, and will shrink over time to a 1 line footnote much like other historical topics.