On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Take Android userspace. I guess nothing there is open. Even the kernel
> can have binary blobs, and we, the users, are left out.
A correction: Android userspace is mostly Free Software and there are
open Android apps available, which enab
On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 14:35:43 +0530 Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
[...]
> Honestly, I can't see a reason why AGPL would
> be bad, in the spirit of Free Software.
[...]
Personally, I see reasons why the GNU AfferoGPL v3 is bad: see my own
analysis [1].
Please note that the FTP Masters disagree with me
On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 15:34 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Riley Baird wrote:
>
> > Not necessarily. It could mean that you want to be as compatible
> with
> > as many open-source licenses as possible.
>
> The Apache licenses don't fit that definition of "permissive" bu
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Riley Baird wrote:
> Not necessarily. It could mean that you want to be as compatible with
> as many open-source licenses as possible.
The Apache licenses don't fit that definition of "permissive" but they
do fit the definition suggested by Ritesh and the definitio
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 22:58:49 +0530
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If I was to make a tool for general purpose, to help others, and ensure
> freedom is guaranteed, I'd go with [A]GPL. If I want to make a
> commercial product, I would go and opt for a proprietary license.
>
> Now I see a reas
5 matches
Mail list logo
