A model of 100% volunteer based software project is futile. Only a combination of payed workers and volunteers is viable.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Peter Kovacs <legi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11.01.2017 11:00, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote: > >> Am 11.01.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Patricia Shanahan: >> >> For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was >>> writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should >>> have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does >>> not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to >>> anything that uses their licenses. >>> >> The difference between the Apache Licence and the licences, which are >> promoted by the FSF, is the so called "Copyleft". The Apache licence has >> no copyleft. >> >> But copyleft gives the programmer more and not less control, because >> nobody can make a proprietary (non free) product of the code without the >> permission of the copyright holder (programmer). >> > I do not think copyleft gives you more control. You omit your copy rights > in favour of copy left. > Multi Licens policies are only possible if your developer team agrees on > this model right from the start. > If you try to build one afterwards, I would expect at least difficulties, > or even risks if your documentation on contributors is to sloppy. > >> That is why some supporters of copyleftless licence say, that these >> licences are more free than licence containing a copyleft. >> >> That is a question, whether you are the user or the creator of the code. >> >> For an enduser of the code copyleft brings potentially more freedom. >> > Endusers do not care about license policy in general. See the closed > source drivers in the Kernel. There was somewhat pressure to resolve it, > but a lot of pressure not to sentence it. > Also you can see in our Community that the Apache License is not a major > topic to them. Functionality is the major point. I think it is even less > important for users which license a software has then data security. > >> If you are a developer, using code under a copyleftless licence is much >> easier. But if you are the programmer of the used code, you have more >> control, what people do with your product. >> > I think the license model is much tied to your business modell. If you are > able to build services around code, the protection of the copy left, makes > you more secure on the market. Since no one can break out. > If your model works directly with the Product, the flexibility of the > Permissive license can be the stronger choice. > I do not believe that a lot of people understand this. There is this Idea > floating around copy left == communism, which I think is not true. It > depends on the organisation of the community. > >> Kind regards >> Michael >> > Thanks michael for your explanations. Was really interesting, even if I > have another point of view :-D > > All the best > Peter > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
