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.
The GPLv3 was specifically developed to make distributor enforcement of the GPLv3 easier.
Rather than requiring third-parties to give out source code on a physical medium, which,
as you mentioned, is onerous for many organizations, the newer license is more lax.
It's your choice to not participate in any project for any reason, but try
to understand that some people (such as myself) much prefer to work on
software that's truly free, rather than virally free.
I hope you don’t seriously think GPL software is not “truly free”.