Just saw the discussion around the Haier Home Assistant takedown and thought it would be good to materialize the metaphorical blacklist.
Just saw the discussion around the Haier Home Assistant takedown and thought it would be good to materialize the metaphorical blacklist.
It’s probably a good idea to have a stronger definition and mission. Here are a few scenarios you should consider.
I like your idea a lot. I think it needs some definition to be very successful!
I’m not planning on counting that as hostile behavior. Organizations can choose a license for their software (and I can choose not to buy/use it). This collection is mostly focused on companies that hurt existing Open Source software. Such as sending a cease and desist to an unofficial plugin/extension or closing down software that was originally open source.
Maybe your could also add organisations (companies, government agencies, NGOs,…) that create standards in such a way that the standard is hard or impossible to implement in open source implementations?
I.e reddit raising API costs high enough that it effectively killed it.
I was more thinking about things like governments that decide that every implementation of something must be certified to be used, e.g. with wireless technologies. Not so much implementation as specification or legal compliance barriers to open source basically.
You raise a good point though, financial barriers such as per user pricing that are hard to implement for software distributed for free would be quite similar.
IBM is so good and so bad. Their machines are so open. Their software is not.
i feel like the MPL is fsr superior and fairer than the MIT license
I personally use Apache 2.0 because it’s been upheld in court. I’m not sure if MPL has been directly challenged in court. Either way, I agree with the sentiment. The legal perspective is why I moved away from MIT/ISC.
you should considwr MPL, if someone found a security vulneravility theyd be legally obligated to tell yoy for example. also, it still allows commerical closed source software. try it!!
Citations please? Using a pushover license instead of copyleft is not hostility but a missed opportunity. Copyleft is about a community safeguarding itself and making sure the software can’t be used in proprietary applications as much as possible.
Are you not familiar with Richard Stallman? Here’s one piece.
Your own citation disproves the hostility claim. To answer your question, yes I was a student associate member of the FSF. Nowhere did I learn to treat non copyleft licenses as “hostile.” In fact, they are so prevalent that considering it hostile/harmful would be fruitless. They are still free licenses at the end of the day (at least the ones that dont violate the four freedoms)
Edit: actually we are hostile to some open source licenses, like the ones that prohibit commercial use to any group or individual! That’s a huge no-no.
Your pull quote expresses hostility to not FSF idealism. I get that you drank the koolaid and believe you get to tell anyone who uses your product what they can do with it. That’s just telling a cook what they have to do with their ingredients just because they bought from you. It’s okay.
What??? It’s literally just a group distinguishing itself from another. Both Open Source and Free Software work together against a common enemy.
It’s good to distinguish different groups that have different methodologies, motives and goals to avoid friction. This essay is actively trying to avoid hostility.
Horseshoe theory but for copyleft and copyright. What a fucking joke. I thought you had good intentions but now I know you’re unwilling to see another perspective.
You don’t seem to understand the implications of GPL and you’re real interested in pushing an org that propped up a pedophile. Based on your comment history, you’re either a troll or you really are into some objectionable shit.
I don’t have a problem with FSF or copyleft. I do have a problem with people that don’t understand either.