Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Matthew Garrett (mjg59@nondeterministic.computer)'s status on Wednesday, 19-Jun-2024 23:41:24 JST Matthew Garrett

   Finally looking at Bruce Perens' "Post Open" licensing drafts and good heavens it's even worse than GPLv3 in terms of focusing on the perceived threats du jour rather than any coherent overall concept. The degree to which it goes beyond copyright law (various things that are plausibly fair use in the US are grounds for termination) is especially egregious. It's explicitly not free software, which I don't think is inherently bad, but it's also just a bad license.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Wednesday, 19-Jun-2024 23:41:22 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @mjg59 >It's explicitly not free software, >which I don't think is inherently bad
     That makes it a proprietary license mjg59.
     
     Proprietary licenses are inherently bad.
     
     I gave it a read and of course the very first section demands you agree to proprietary terms and misinterprets what copyright law actually applies to and I see a bunch of other proprietary terms below.
     
     Bruce screws things up yet again.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jun-2024 23:50:23 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Abe
     @abe GNU/Jihad against "open source"!; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
     
     >like proprietary software isn't inherently bad.
     Most proprietary malware is functionally utter garbage, but there are a few examples of proprietary programs where the malware author(s) are actually competent - but that isn't a good thing, as it's like having handcuffs that are perfectly lubed and balanced with a long chain such that you can barely notice the handcuffs - thus many suckers are conned into surrendering their freedom - but all of them are still handcuffed.
     
     
     Free software in its initial stages of development may have major issues and sometimes there is proprietary sabotage to work around, but as soon as serious development work is carried out, every single one of such programs always ends up functionally superior to proprietary software.
   • Embed this notice
     Abe (abe@civv.es)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jun-2024 23:50:25 JST Abe

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @mjg59@nondeterministic.computer Proprietary licenses are inherently bad.Nah. Just like proprietary software isn't inherently bad. Quality of software/license doesn't depend on whether it's open source or not. there's plenty of open source software that is utterly subpar and vice versa.