On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Tyler Romeo <tylerromeo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On February 9, 2015 at 15:17:22, Ryan Lane
(rlane32(a)gmail.com) wrote:
You're implying that Apache2 licensed software is somehow not part of the
free software movement and that's absurd. Apache2 is technically a freer
license than GPLv(anything). Like GPL3, it also provides patent protection.
In practice it doesn't matter if software is forked and closed if the
canonical source isn't. The org that forks must maintain their fork and all
of their modifications without help. It's onerous and generally
unmaintainable for most orgs, especially if their core business isn't based
on the software, or if the canonical source is fast moving.
Please don’t spread misinformation to those who don’t know any better. The
goal of the free software movement is to ensure the
freedoms of end users
to see the source code of the software they use. Any license that allows
distributors to deny users this right is not actually protecting the goal
of the movement. To be clear, software can be free without specifically
supporting the free software movement.
<flamebait>
Your third sentence is a non-sequitur. Just because free software can be
used in non-free ways doesn't defeat the goals of the free software
movement (unless you believe that the free software movement really intends
to displace all non-free software, in which case the movement is a complete
failure).
</flamebait>
Ryan Kaldari