Post AWm90BdXVCugUPv5MG by oemb1905@gnulinux.social
(DIR) More posts by oemb1905@gnulinux.social
(DIR) Post #AWm90BdXVCugUPv5MG by oemb1905@gnulinux.social
2023-06-17T06:23:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Anyone find this language about "open-source" on Rocky Linux's page troublesome? @osi @lightweight #freesoftware #gnulinux #opensource #floss #freesoftware It would seem they are reifying open-source, OSI, and permissive together as a whole, and distinguishing that from copyleft, which would therefore be something "other than open-source" by inference. Am I interpreting Rocky Linux's position wrong here? Ideas welcome ...
(DIR) Post #AWm90CdvlEovbv6ubg by vazub@mastodon.online
2023-06-17T06:40:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@oemb1905 @osi @lightweight Personally, I don't see the inference here - they are merely specifying (note the 'and') what type of licensing philosophy they are preferring.
(DIR) Post #AWm90CzCU9pmft3tlA by oemb1905@gnulinux.social
2023-06-17T06:41:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@osi @lightweight It’s ambiguous whether they are implying these licenses are open source because they are non copy left or if they mean that there are both non copy left open source licenses and copy left licences. However, by juxtaposing permissive and OSI approval together, they are suggesting that copyleft licenses are inherently restrictive and potentially not OSI approved. This type of verbiage reinforces the negative stigma on using open source as a term.
(DIR) Post #AWm90Df1ydIKlcdIxc by oemb1905@gnulinux.social
2023-06-17T06:42:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@vazub @osi @lightweight there’s no and in between permissive OSI non copy left …
(DIR) Post #AWm90EINcKlojf2jIG by vazub@mastodon.online
2023-06-17T06:44:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@oemb1905 @osi @lightweight "...to be freele available and open-source AND will leverage only OSI-approved permissive, non-copyleft..."
(DIR) Post #AWm90F8UUaSDLHQLWC by lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-06-17T06:45:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@vazub @oemb1905 @osi trying to figure out how they'll fit the Linux kernel in there.... (it's Copyleft).
(DIR) Post #AWm90G2r71XaA5nMNE by vazub@mastodon.online
2023-06-17T06:46:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lightweight @oemb1905 @osi Indeed, seems like they missed that point. But perhaps they mean their own tooling or whatever.
(DIR) Post #AWm90GhcfS9OCWruuu by lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-06-17T06:55:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@vazub sounds like they're 100% pro-corporate (presumably fishing for corporate funding). I'm guessing the Rocky Linux project framers didn't do well in kindergarten, where being good at 'sharing-alike' is a graduation requirement. @oemb1905 @osi
(DIR) Post #AWm90HM2FCTcDrmBuK by vazub@mastodon.online
2023-06-17T07:04:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lightweight @oemb1905 @osi I know nothing about their particular pitch and agenda, but you seem to be implying that everyone who prefers permissive licensing is pro-corporate. That is quite a bit of a stretch.
(DIR) Post #AWm90HvU7OphzoMVA8 by lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-06-17T07:10:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@vazub heh. You've inferred correctly. The only reasons to prefer permissive open source licenses is because you want the option to make the code proprietary the code (as all corporates do). Some naïve devs believe the (corporate led) assertion that permissive licenses are somehow 'more free' or 'less restrictive.' That is only true if your intention is eventually make the code proprietary. 'More free' is a question of perspective. It's not 'more free' for users. @oemb1905 @osi
(DIR) Post #AWm90Ijp6F6CVvuhcm by lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-06-17T07:21:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@vazub If you disagree with that, I'd love to understand your reasoning. @oemb1905 @osi
(DIR) Post #AWm90JLkpDRMPZezkO by colinsmatt11@gleasonator.com
2023-06-17T07:36:56.928687Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lightweight @vazub @oemb1905 @osi I have always seen licensing as a tactical thing rather than a philosophical one.I think choosing licenses that would provide the maximum freedom to every user (ranging from technically inclined to others) which a copyleft license fulfills but it makes makes more sense to use non copyleft licenses for media, documentation, free format implementations.