You must log in or register to comment.


md_ wrote (edited )

The people who advocate for permissive licenses in the hope that big proprietary software companies will pick the software up and use it, therefore there's a chance they will contribute back, are just naive idealists. It's much more honest and respectable to admit that they want to take shortcuts and use permissively licensed components without any reciprocity obligations.

The contributions the BSD's got from Sony are super-specific to the PlayStation. Google, who started AOSP with that idealist promise, has now essentially gutted AOSP of any permissively licensed component, replacing it with Google Play stuff. Even the Calendar application was proprietarised. And in all those devices that run the Linux kernel and permissively licensed userland tools, sure, you get the LICENSE text in the About menu, and maybe if you ask a couple of times, a zip with the source code, but the bootloader is locked, and there's DRM around everything (meaning that the device becomes a glorified paperweight as soon as it is end-of-life'd).

The choice could only be between GPLv3+ and AGPLv3+. Now, from my understanding, Pelican is served better by Affero GPL, because you can see how someone could offer a static blog hosting service that runs Pelican on the server-side.

The concerns about copyleft spilling over into the content of the generated website are probably FUD. From my reading, there's no difference between AGPL and GPL on that issue, and Wordpress doesn't claim people's blog posts as GPL derivative works. Even Ghostscript is AGPL, and you can argue it is as much of a compiler as Pelican, and so far no one suggested that every time we export something to PDF, it becomes a derivative work subject to copyleft.

But if the people worry so much, email GNU and ask them what's their interpretation.

This post is released to the cultural commons under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (BY-SA) version 4 or (at your option) any later version :P


salimfadhley wrote

All my code is MIT licened. Some of it is commercially useful but I really don't care if companies do stuff with it.


md_ wrote

Well, my advice is to never claim more than you are willing to enforce - 10 years ago I swore off the NC clause from Creative Commons, partly because I didn't feel like enforcing it, partly because it is extremely poorly defined.

So if you weren't ever going to try to enforce your copyleft, you might as well go with MIT (consider the Apache 2 license though).


xxi wrote (edited )

What md_ said.