FSF does not enforce anything. I repeatedly begged for help with Desktop CYBER which was GPL licensed and they did not even bother to reply.
Tom Hunter On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 7:46 AM Paul Koning via cctalk < cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > > On Mar 14, 2023, at 10:57 PM, Jonathan Chapman via cctalk < > cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > > >> If you posted your design as Open Source, someone else producing it > isn't a knockoff, it's the system working as intended. > > > > What is it when the design is open source, but they're not complying > with the terms of the license? That's what really bugs me, the "cost" of > producing your own from one of our designs is attribution and releasing > your design under the same or a compatible license, but apparently that's > too much to ask. > > > > Thanks, > > Jonathan > > You're talking about GPL or equivalent there -- for which the FSF has at > times been the enforcer. BSD style licenses require next to nothing of > people copying (in particular, they don't require releasing the derived > work). > > Personally I'm partial to BSD style licenses, though some of my open > source work was originally licensed under GPL. (I may change that at some > point if I want to bother.) That means I'm accepting the possibility that > someone could copy what I did and sell it as a closed product. Fine, so be > it (that doesn't close what I did, of course). > > paul > >
