| |||||||||||||
FOSDEM: State of the GNUnionFOSDEM: State of the GNUnionPosted Feb 7, 2013 18:32 UTC (Thu) by Fats (subscriber, #14882)Parent article: FOSDEM: State of the GNUnion
"LibreJS identifies whether JavaScript files are free software, and it can be configured to reject any script that's not free."Exactly what I was waiting for. NOT! Also the reason why don't assign copyright to the FSF. I like the (L)GPL - especially v2 - but don't follow the moral connections from the FSF. I don't see a problem with a world where free and non-free software co-exist.
(Log in to post comments)
FOSDEM: State of the GNUnion Posted Feb 7, 2013 18:42 UTC (Thu) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] Some people will find LibreJS useful. Some people will find it useless but interesting. Nobody who would find it harmful or inconvenient or annoying is obliged to install it. So why the bile?
FOSDEM: State of the GNUnion Posted Feb 7, 2013 19:46 UTC (Thu) by Fats (subscriber, #14882) [Link]
I don't have a problem with the existence of LibreJS itself; I don't have problem with people who only want to use free software.
I do have a problem with the fact that it is done by a foundation that wants me to assign my copyright to them and calls me unethical because I don't see a problem with non-free software.
FOSDEM: State of the GNUnion Posted Feb 8, 2013 6:22 UTC (Fri) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link]
> foundation that wants me to assign my copyright to them
One of the point that John touched in his talk is how the FSF copyright assignment: 1) does not let the FSF make the software non-free; 2) gives an unlimited grant to the author that lets them do whatever they want with it.
FOSDEM: State of the GNUnion Posted Feb 8, 2013 10:25 UTC (Fri) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]
> 1) does not let the FSF make the software non-free
(I didn't read the terms of the assignment)
Management changes, even in non-profits...
FOSDEM: State of the GNUnion Posted Feb 8, 2013 15:24 UTC (Fri) by pbonzini (subscriber, #60935) [Link]
4. FSF agrees that all distribution of the Works, or of any work "based on the Works", or the Program as enhanced by the Works, that takes place under the control of FSF or its agents or successors, shall be on terms that explicitly and perpetually permit anyone possessing a copy of the work to which the terms apply, and possessing accurate notice of these terms, to redistribute copies of the work to anyone on the same terms. These terms shall not restrict which members of the public copies may be distributed to. These terms shall not require a member of the public to pay any royalty to FSF or to anyone else for any permitted use of the work they apply to, or to communicate with FSF or its agents or assignees in any way either when redistribution is performed or on any other occasion.
5. FSF agrees that any program "based on the Works" offered to the public by FSF or its agents or assignees shall be offered in the form of machine-readable source code, in addition to any other forms of FSF's choosing. However, FSF is free to choose at its convenience the media of distribution for machine-readable source code and may charge a fee of its choosing for copies.
FOSDEM: State of the GNUnion Posted Feb 8, 2013 13:09 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> One of the point that John touched in his talk is how the FSF copyright assignment: 1) does not let the FSF make the software non-free; 2) gives an unlimited grant to the author that lets them do whatever they want with it.
The (L)GPL already grants a number of rights that people would not have without it. I wonder whether it couldn't also grant some sort of right of enforcement to any user of the software, and thereby make the copyright assignment ("The FSF collects copyright assignments in order to enforce the GPL") unnecessary, as well as making the playing field more even between the FSF and the rest. Granted, that has potential for being dangerous, but the people working on the licences are probably careful enough to get it right if it can be done at all.
FOSDEM: State of the GNUnion Posted Feb 10, 2013 19:57 UTC (Sun) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]
There are limitations to what you can do with a licence and I'm pretty sure that "allowing someone else to enforce the licence on your behalf" is in the not-possible list (though I wouldn't want to speak for all jurisdictions).
Copyright is fairly restricted. You fairly quickly come into the area of contract law. And a copyright assignment is just another kind of contract...
Ya can't sue over what ya don't own Posted Feb 10, 2013 23:23 UTC (Sun) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] A few publishers assigned Righthaven LLC the right to sue over infringement of said publishers’ copyrights, while retaining all other rights. A court stomped on that idea, deciding that Righthaven had no standing to sue over a copyright they didn't own.Sounds to me to be precisely the mechanism suggested above—it won’t work, at least in the U.S.
|
|||||||||||||