@SuperDicq hi, dmpwn.info doesn't appear to be authored by relevant (trustworthy) figures inside the free software community.
It also seems totally unrelated to stallman-report.org and stallmansupport.org; since nicknames aren't unique, there is also no solid link between the profiles shown in dmpwn.info and @drewdevault .
The authenticity and veridicity of the informations provided in dmpwn.info couldn't be verified, so I have no basis to create a new dedicated poll. 👋
Most voters felt the need to express a strong, polarizing opinion on the matter: The Stallman Report, a serious call for accountability and change within the #FSF and #GNU, resonated with a larger portion of Mastodon's userbase.
Shared Source software is a type source-available software.
This model, stemmed from the SSI, is a middle ground between Free Software, Open Source software and proprietary software, allowing users to view and learn from the code, but not necessarily modify or distribute it freely.
Open Source is a #software development model based on publication of public codebases, so all users get unlimited access to the original source code used to create the application, framework or library. #OpenSource promotes collaboration, transparency, and community involvement, because everybody can contribute to the codebase, report bugs and suggest new features.
Source-available software is a development model where source code is published without necessarily guaranteeing any additional rights to the user. For that reason, source-available codebases may contain proprietary components and depending on the specific case may not be considered open-source.
All software that makes its source code available - regardless of the licensing terms - can be called source-available, but when the publisher's effort goes beyond the mere publication of the codebase, it is more appropriate to use more specific definitions like Open Source, Shared Source or Free/Libre Software.
The Shared Source Initiative is a set of licenses created by #Microsoft® in 2001. It allowed developers to access and view the source code of certain products, while also imposing restrictions on modification and redistribution. It provides some of the benefits of open-source software while still maintaining control over intellectual property.
Nowadays some of the licenses produced by the SSI are recognized as Open Source and others as Free Software.
@Suiseiseki you're having Chinese/English translation issues.
In this context 'viral' does not have a negative connotation, it only describes the way copyleft licenses can spread their terms to derivative works. This is a deliberate design choice made by copyright holders, not a real virus. 'Viral' is a popular term, there is no danger.
The GPL tries to ensure that the freedoms granted by the license are preserved in derivative works. That's a key part of what defines free software. 👋
@Suiseiseki the post explictly refers only to derivative works and includes both commercial and non-commercial works.
GNU licenses are called "viral" because their copyleft provisions require that any derivative works (either commercial or non-commercial) be licensed under the same terms, effectively "spreading" the license to all modified or combined code.
"Free Software" identify mobile and desktop #apps, interfaces, frameworks and libraries with freedom-respecting licensing terms that guarantee the rights to execute, redistribute, study and improve their source code. #FreeSoftware is a type of #OpenSource software, so all users must always retain unlimited access to the source code.
The term "libre" is a modern synonim of "free". "Libre software" commonly refers to the same concept of "Free software" with minimal differences. The term derives from the #French 🇫🇷 and #Spanish 🇪🇸 word for "free" and it underlines that a certain #software respects your freedom and liberty. It is often used to prevent ambiguities in countries where English is not the main tongue.
#FLOSS means "Free / Libre and Open Source software".
Both acronyms identify applications that are not closed source and that offer full transparency of their inner workings and #development processes. Be careful, as these acronyms are used where a rough categorization is needed and their meaning depends on the context where you find them.
Yes, because all Free / Libre #apps must guarantee that their source code is accessible by everyone. #FreeSoftware is a subset of #OpenSource software which grants additional fundamental rights to the end users through legal and technical means.
No, #OpenSource software doesn't offer the same fundamental rights and permissive licensing terms as #FreeSoftware. Non-free / Non-libre licenses can impose limitations on how the #sourcecode must be used, modified or redistributed.
No, all #FOSS is governed exclusively by individual maintainers, volunteer organizations and sometimes companies. A specialized software #license, always included in the codebase and visible to the end user, defines how each open codebase can be used, improved, and redistributed.
No, free software licenses do not typically require developers or maintainers to accept contributions from users. Projects may choose to review, accept, or reject contributions from users based on their own criteria. However, most #FOSS licenses grant the right to #fork the project: users and developers often organize to do so when they feel their contributions were unfairly rejected.
Hostile forking is the controversial practice of publishing a clone of an active #FOSS project against the author's will, without a different name and a clear attribution, often to compete or undermine the original project. Some consider it a form of exploitation and can harm the original project and confuse most end users.
Hostile forks may not meet the original quality and #security standards.
The "-or-later" clause allows users to pick which version of the same #license they want to use, even if it was created far after the licensed software. Its usage is controversal: it creates uncertainty when determining if a software is really free and can be used to sneak in terms incompatible with #freesoftware principles. For these reasons, legal savvy developers often prefer licenses marked with "-only".
Friendly and enterprising geek, I love culture in all its forms and I try to actively spread computer literacy. Lifelong scholar, free and open-source software (FOSS/FLOSS) developer, webmaster. As a free thinker, I dedicate my life to physical and intellectual improvement. 🇪🇺 🇮🇹Golden rule: respect → more respect.---#opensource #FOSS #programming #Linux #sysadmin