Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Aral Balkan (aral@mastodon.ar.al)'s status on Sunday, 10-Mar-2024 19:58:52 JST Aral Balkan

   • Digital Mark λ 📚 🕹 💾 🥃

   @mdhughes It is free for everyone. It’s just not free for you to take and enclose. It’s not free for you to take the freedom away. It’s not free as in “fuck you, I got mine!”

   • Embed this notice
     Aral Balkan (aral@mastodon.ar.al)'s status on Sunday, 10-Mar-2024 20:07:43 JST Aral Balkan

     in reply to

     • Digital Mark λ 📚 🕹 💾 🥃

     @mdhughes PS. Corporations (like Google, etc.) expressly have policies where they will not touch GPL code with a five foot pole.

     On the other hand, we have closed source feature phones with KaiOS because Mozilla uses a neoliberal license (because, of course) and they were able to enclose Firefox OS.

     Your choice of license is about as far from being meaningless as it is possible to be.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 10-Mar-2024 20:20:48 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @aral >Corporations (like Google, etc.) expressly have policies where they will not touch GPL code with a five foot pole.
     That is incorrect.
     
     google is quite happy with the requirements of the GPLv2 and GPLv3, considering that they distribute Android (which contains Linux) and use a lot of GNU software on their servers.
     
     Although, google has a policy where they won't even use internally software licensed under the AGPLv3, as their business model is about taking free software and making it function equivalent to proprietary software with spyware and a universal back door by making it SaaSS: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
     
     google does quite enjoy the freedom of free software, but you can't have it of course.
     
     >Mozilla uses a neoliberal license
     Firefox is actually tri-licensed under the MPLv2.0, GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1, although the MPL allows making the software proprietary.
   • Embed this notice
     Aral Balkan (aral@mastodon.ar.al)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 02:15:13 JST Aral Balkan

     in reply to

     • Digital Mark λ 📚 🕹 💾 🥃
     • smolwaffle

     @smolwaffle Yeah, that would make sense given how the AGPL would be far more detrimental to their stack. @mdhughes

   • Embed this notice
     smolwaffle (smolwaffle@union.place)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 02:15:14 JST smolwaffle

     in reply to

     • Digital Mark λ 📚 🕹 💾 🥃

     @aral
     IIRC at Google, GPL is fine but you are not allowed to run AGPL code. There's some other verboten licenses like wtfpl, too.

     It took years to get legal to negotiate a special license for Logseq so that people could use it to take notes. Still local only, of course.
     @mdhughes