[haiku] Re: Haiku package freedom.

  • From: "Jonas Sundström" <jonas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: haiku@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:22:31 +0100 CET

Chris Andrew <cjhandrew@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Apologies for top-posting.

(It truly helps longer discussions if people avoid top-
posting and instead reply inline, with proper quoting,
removing paragraphs that are not essential to the continued 
discussion.)
 
> ATM, I'm neither a user nor helper, but am willing to be both. As
> stated earlier (I think), sometimes the licence information is 
> missing
> ('Public domain'),

Some people actually publish their own work explicitly as
"public domain", without much regard for how it would hold
up in court. I've done so for some of my works. Classifying
this as missing a license (or license unknown) would be 
incorrect, IMO. It's not the license which is unknown but
the legal status of the license (in a set of jurisdictions).

>  this needs to be cleared-up and it could so easily
> become FSF compliant at the 'stroke of a pen'.  If software freedom 
> is
> not of interest, then I'm sure M$ will be offering money soon to make
> sure the Haiku project don't create any competition ;-).

The FSF's view of software freedoms (e.g. copyleft) isn't
necessarily shared by all Haiku parties. Being FSF compliant
has never been a stated goal for Haiku. But that hardly aligns
us with Microsoft. (A few more shades of gray please.)

Personally I wish there was a working public domain so
that we didn't have to resort to these cumbersome licenses
and endure the ever-growing push for larger copyright life-
spans.

/Jonas.


Other related posts: