On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Tyler Romeo tylerromeo@gmail.com wrote:
On February 9, 2015 at 15:17:22, Ryan Lane (rlane32@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