Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
In his talk, Tony [Sebro] wonders whether the community around copyleft, like those around eschatology and Afro-centric hip-hop, has lost it's center and how we might entice new stakeholders to reinvest in our shared values. His keynote is a great place to start with this year's videos."
| From: | Deb Nicholson <info-AT-sfconservancy.org> | |
| To: | announce-AT-sfconservancy.org | |
| Subject: | Second Annual Copyleft Conf: Videos Are Up! | |
| Date: | Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:31:18 -0400 | |
| Message-ID: | <1616abadacd28d9a48c44c31f2e227998e370b91.camel@sfconservancy.org> | |
| Archive-link: | Article |
URL: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2020/apr/29/cc2video/ In February, we ran our second annual [Copyleft Conf]( https://2020.copyleftconf.org/). Thanks to our program committee; Molly de Blanc, Beth Flanagan, Bradley Kuhn, Deb Nicholson, Nithya Ruff, Josh Simmons and Haralde Welte, the [schedule]( https://2020.copyleftconf.org/schedule/) was both bold and timely. We are happy to announce that all the videos of this year's sessions are now [available for you to watch.](https://2020.copyleftconf.org/video) This year's [keynote]( https://archive.org/details/copyleftconf2020-sebro) was delivered by [Tony Sebro](https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/tony-sebro/), who is Vice President of Counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, former General Counsel of Conservancy, and serves on the Outreachy organizer's committee. In his talk, Tony wonders whether the community around copyleft, like those around eschatology and Afro-centric hip-hop, has lost it's center and how we might entice new stakeholders to reinvest in our shared values. His keynote is a great place to start with this year's videos. We also want to especially thank Coraline Ada Ehmke for participating in Copyleft Conf. She describes our responsibility as technologists and shared her plan for building a movement to keep technology from being used by bad actors. Both [her talk]( https://archive.org/details/copyleftconf2020-ehmke) and the [community discussion]( https://archive.org/details/copyleftconf2020-ethical-lice...) that followed are available to watch now. The passionate conversation around ethical licensing was cited by many as a highlight of the conference and we're glad we were able to host it at Copyleft Conf. In case you missed it, our first year's keynote was Molly de Blanc. She's the Manager of Strategic Initiatives at GNOME Foundation. There was [a Faifcast episode](http://faif.us/cast/2019/may/31/0x68/) where Bradley and Karen discuss her talk, "The Margins of Software Freedom" coupled with an onsite interview. Many of the 2019 Copyleft Conf videos are also [available to watch.](https://2020.copyleftconf.org/video) We have no way of knowing what 2021 will mean for in-person events, but we will continue to advocate for and discuss copyleft as a tool for software freedom -- stay in touch by following us on [Mastodon]( https://mastodon.technology/@conservancy) or [Twitter]( https://twitter.com/conservancy) or swing by #conservancy on freenode.net to talk with folks in real time, any time, but [especially on Thursdays at 6pm UTC.]( https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/mar/12/virtualchat/) About Conservancy Conservancy is a resourceful, non-profit organization dedicated to helping people take control of their computing experience by growing the software freedom movement, supporting community-driven alternatives to proprietary software and defending free software builders with practical initiatives. Conservancy believes that the future of software should be for everyone. -- Deb Nicholson <deb@sfconservancy.org> Software Freedom Conservancy _______________________________________________ announce mailing list announce@sfconservancy.org https://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/announce
Posted Apr 30, 2020 1:15 UTC (Thu)
by jra (subscriber, #55261)
[Link] (51 responses)
It was a great place for many disagreeing (some would say disagreeable :-) people to try and get a meeting of minds.
My favorite talk was from my colleague Dashiell Renaud, a rather licence-geeky talk on collaborative ownership.
https://archive.org/details/copyleftconf2020-renaud
It was an intricately constructed puzzle-box of a talk, and a lot of fun to listen to !
Posted Apr 30, 2020 5:03 UTC (Thu)
by abartlet (subscriber, #3928)
[Link] (50 responses)
Well worth a watch, or perhaps even an article! :-)
Posted Apr 30, 2020 7:07 UTC (Thu)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (3 responses)
Damn, he really pulls no punches there. I'm reminded of (Mickens, 2008), which was funnier but no less condemnatory of its subject matter.
The only thing I would've added is a mention of the Great Toybox/Busybox Debacle, since IMHO it perfectly exemplifies his point about license enforcement "not working" for various definitions of "work." But maybe a few people in the room were still a tad upset about that one.
Posted Apr 30, 2020 7:08 UTC (Thu)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link]
Posted May 1, 2020 11:38 UTC (Fri)
by joib (subscriber, #8541)
[Link] (1 responses)
Though jra goes a bit further and argues for focusing on "documented, interoperable protocols", as an approach more in line with what's relevant today and more likely to be successful than expanding and enforcing copyleft.
But how do we do that in practice? What ultimately caused Microsoft to open up and document the SMB protocol suite? Can that same approach be successful in other areas?
Posted May 1, 2020 12:53 UTC (Fri)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
The short version -- it took nine years and an anti-trust lawsuit by the EU commission.
(If they hadn't been so dominant in the market, the EU wouldn't have had grounds to step in. But at the same time, if they hadn't been so dominant, the odds are they'd have been more open in an attempt to gain more market share..)
So, no, I don't think that approach is scalable.
Posted Apr 30, 2020 17:16 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (45 responses)
For example, our product is a CAD application and what would happen if we have a plugin that allows to view our CAD models directly in webmail? Will this require opening up everything? What if we simply use an iframe to render it?
Posted Apr 30, 2020 17:20 UTC (Thu)
by jra (subscriber, #55261)
[Link] (33 responses)
Posted Apr 30, 2020 18:17 UTC (Thu)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link] (23 responses)
https://www.fsf.org/events/john-sullivan-20190202-brussel...
> the AGPL is being used today by a variety of interesting and important projects, including ones started by governments, nonprofits, and even businesses.
$ grep -il affero /usr/share/doc/*/copyright
Another is Mastodon, which is extremely popular.
jra, whats the output of that command for you?
Posted Apr 30, 2020 18:22 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (16 responses)
E.g.
http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/g/gnutl...
Ah, I see. Your code is triggered by this clause of GPLv3:
Posted Apr 30, 2020 18:37 UTC (Thu)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link] (15 responses)
Posted Apr 30, 2020 18:42 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (14 responses)
Posted Apr 30, 2020 20:21 UTC (Thu)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link] (13 responses)
Posted Apr 30, 2020 20:31 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (12 responses)
Pulseaudio removed an AGPL plugin in 2017: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pulseaudio-discuss...
Without pulseaudio spam, the final is: anki, debug-me, monit, mupdf, pithos. Out of these four mupdf, pithos are "poisoned pill" software with a proprietary dual-license.
So we have only: anki (last version in 2006), debug-me (a small hobby project) and monit as a result. Sorry, but you've just demonstrated that that AGPL is basically non-existent.
Posted May 1, 2020 15:12 UTC (Fri)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted May 1, 2020 15:50 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (8 responses)
> I've just demonstrated that on my computer, there are several useful agpl programs that i've been using for years.
So AGPL is basically a dead license.
Posted May 3, 2020 3:07 UTC (Sun)
by jra (subscriber, #55261)
[Link] (2 responses)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://opensource.com/article... [opensource.com]
One of the things he notes (that to be honest I'd forgotten about for my talk) is that Red Hat and others have lead the charge to adopt the "forgiveness" provisions of GPLv3 (which as I recall was one of the primary concerns of corporate lawyers taking part in the GPLv3 drafting process) into GPLv2.
To quote from the linked article:
> "This in turn was followed by a Red Hat-led series of corporate commitments to extend the GPLv3 cure provisions to GPLv2 and LGPLv2.x noncompliance, a
From Richard's blog post:
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog... [redhat.com]
> "As of today, all new Red Hat-initiated open source projects that opt to use GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1 will be expected to supplement the license with the cure
A cynic would read that as an attempt by Red Hat to neuter possible adoption of GPLv3 with it's "problematic" (for corporations) anti-DRM provisions. In the words of one of my favorite fictional characters - "You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment" :-).
Posted May 3, 2020 3:15 UTC (Sun)
by jra (subscriber, #55261)
[Link]
Richard Fontana's retrospective:
https://opensource.com/article/18/6/gplv3-anniversary
Richard Fontana's blog post:
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/gpl-cooperation-commitment...
Posted May 4, 2020 0:01 UTC (Mon)
by jra (subscriber, #55261)
[Link]
Many others including my own employer Google also signed on to this statement as well.
Sorry Red Hat. Hats off to you for all your sterling Open Source work :-).
Posted May 4, 2020 17:15 UTC (Mon)
by federico3 (guest, #101963)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted May 4, 2020 17:19 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted May 4, 2020 17:58 UTC (Mon)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (2 responses)
...Mastadon (and the rest of the activitypub ecosystem) may not be your cup of tea, but it is decidedly non-trivial.
(Or do you only consider something "successful" or "serious" when its userbase is hits nine digits?)
Posted May 4, 2020 18:06 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
So far Mastodon has is basically a large hobbyist project for bored coders, if it disappears almost nobody would notice this.
But OK, whatever. Let's say that there are two large AGPL-only projects: Mastodon and nextCloud. I guess it's "Mission Accomplished" for AGPL?
Posted May 4, 2020 18:20 UTC (Mon)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
While what you say is probably true, I doubt their choice of software license will have anything to do with it.
> But OK, whatever. Let's say that there are two large AGPL-only projects: Mastodon and nextCloud. I guess it's "Mission Accomplished" for AGPL?
Many years ago, I deliberately chose to _not_ use AGPL for one of my projects, for many of the reasons mentioned in this thread. I share the opinion that the AGPL is only really useful as a poison pill.
Posted May 7, 2020 22:42 UTC (Thu)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link]
Posted May 8, 2020 0:07 UTC (Fri)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
My employer's product – an MFA integration server – is under the AGPL (paid licenses with support are also available).
Posted Apr 30, 2020 18:57 UTC (Thu)
by jra (subscriber, #55261)
[Link] (5 responses)
If you want to claim AGPL is widely used, please tell me which of the FSF's projects for which they own copyright are under AGPL ? They won't even move glibc to LGPLv3 as Richard was frightened it would encourage creation of glibc alternatives.
The FSF is frightened of its own licenses.
Posted Apr 30, 2020 22:09 UTC (Thu)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted May 2, 2020 18:51 UTC (Sat)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 2, 2020 18:52 UTC (Sat)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link]
Posted May 3, 2020 2:03 UTC (Sun)
by jra (subscriber, #55261)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 3, 2020 2:06 UTC (Sun)
by jra (subscriber, #55261)
[Link]
You can tell, I'm still rather annoyed by that :-).
Posted Apr 30, 2020 18:35 UTC (Thu)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link] (1 responses)
I've never seen it, thus it doesn't exist! https://old.reddit.com/r/Giraffesdontexist/ it was a bit entertaining of a talk, but that part was clearly wrong. Here's another example for you: Civicrm, used by thousands of nonprofits.
Posted Apr 30, 2020 19:38 UTC (Thu)
by jra (subscriber, #55261)
[Link]
Posted May 1, 2020 11:19 UTC (Fri)
by joib (subscriber, #8541)
[Link] (3 responses)
The project set off quite promising (focus on security and making encryption easy), but seems to have stagnated (not saying the stagnation is related to AGPL).
Posted May 1, 2020 17:41 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (2 responses)
The _only_ non-trivial AGPL-only project I know of that avoided this fate is nextCloud.
Posted May 1, 2020 19:18 UTC (Fri)
by joib (subscriber, #8541)
[Link] (1 responses)
As for nextcloud, IIUIC it's a fork of owncloud, which has precisely the "poison pill" AGPL/proprietary license.
Posted May 1, 2020 19:33 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Posted May 5, 2020 17:19 UTC (Tue)
by stevem (subscriber, #1512)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted May 5, 2020 18:09 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Linaro is also a trade group dedicated to promotion of ARM CPUs, so they don't particularly care about an income stream.
Posted May 26, 2020 7:01 UTC (Tue)
by Seirdy (guest, #137326)
[Link]
- SecureDrop, used by whistleblowers to submit documents to the press.
Posted Apr 30, 2020 18:11 UTC (Thu)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link] (10 responses)
What is licensed under agpl in this scenario? There is no kind of gpl which requires "opening up everything."
Posted Apr 30, 2020 18:14 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Apr 30, 2020 18:24 UTC (Thu)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Apr 30, 2020 18:28 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (4 responses)
As for your link:
And so far there's no clear answer that applies to web. Is an iframe enough to establish "intimate communication"? What about a WebComponent?
Posted Apr 30, 2020 20:47 UTC (Thu)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (3 responses)
The FSF takes the position that any sort of linking constitutes a derivative work, but this is a question of law for a court to resolve. The FSF does not have the power to override the plain language of either the local copyright statute or their own licenses. The {,A,L}GPL are all very explicit about this. Consider for example this line from GPLv3:
> To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a “modified version” of the earlier work or a work “based on” the earlier work.
So, if whatever you did does not "require copyright permission" according to your local jurisdiction, then section 5 of GPLv3 ("Conveying Modified Source Versions") does not attach and copyleft is not applicable to your product. AGPLv3 has an identical definition, and LGPLv3 incorporates GPLv3's definition by reference. A prudent lawyer would probably advise you to assume that permission is required, but to the best of my knowledge, the claim that dynamic linking constitutes a derivative work has not been seriously tested in a court of law and might not actually be correct. Even if a court were to rule it correct, it might vary by jurisdiction or by circumstances.
(Whether it is wise to actually litigate this out is another question, of course. Lawsuits are expensive and may have uncertain outcomes. Most businesses will likely prefer to just avoid AGPL-licensed software altogether. This is probably why we don't have many clear court rulings on this point.)
Finally, I feel obligated to quote the actual part of the AGPL that gives most people pause (section 13, "Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License"):
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.
It is important to bear in mind *which program* is the "modified version" and how it is interacting with the end user. For example, if you made a plugin to a traditional email client rather than a webmail service, then the user would not be interacting with your plugin "remotely through a computer network" but locally on their own machine, so the AGPL would not impose any additional requirements on top of regular GPL formalities. You might still object to those formalities, but in this case, your beef is with copyleft in general, not AGPL in particular.
Posted Apr 30, 2020 21:02 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (2 responses)
There are also no problems with GPL dynamic libraries, it's widely accepted that linking them in results in a derived work. So proprietary programmers just avoid them altogether.
But there ARE problems with uncertainty around AGPL's scope. And FSF at least can provide clear guidance here. It won't be legally binding per se, but it will be taken into account by courts.
With all the uncertainty companies just have to ban it entirely (like Amazon and Google do internally). And this in turn ensures that there is close to zero useful AGPL-only code.
Posted Apr 30, 2020 21:15 UTC (Thu)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (1 responses)
> There are also no problems with GPL dynamic libraries, it's widely accepted that linking them in results in a derived work.
This is mostly but not universally true. For example, Canonical has, for quite some time, distributed ZFS-on-Linux as a binary module with Ubuntu, which the Conservancy says violates the GPL. As you might imagine, Canonical disagrees with them. The heart of the dispute is dynamic linking between ZFS and Linux.
Posted May 3, 2020 3:11 UTC (Sun)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Posted May 4, 2020 21:26 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
Unfortunately, software devs need to eat like everyone else. And if your software REQUIRES you to work on it full-time (things like tax software for example) how are you going to pay for your food if most people freeload off you?
Yes, I would like to write awesome free software. But most people can't afford to do it for free.
Cheers,
Posted May 5, 2020 8:57 UTC (Tue)
by Lennie (subscriber, #49641)
[Link] (1 responses)
So going with your example: the tax code changes, so the program has to change with it: people pay you to write the new code.
Where is the problem ?
Posted May 5, 2020 9:37 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Finding enough people prepared to pay rather than freeload ...
Oh - and the potential liability, and all that sort of stuff.
People write software for all sorts of reasons, get paid in all sorts of ways, but sometimes cash is a necessity :-(
Cheers,
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
/usr/share/doc/anki/copyright
/usr/share/doc/ca-certificates/copyright
/usr/share/doc/crda/copyright
/usr/share/doc/debian-goodies/copyright
/usr/share/doc/debug-me/copyright
/usr/share/doc/ghostscript/copyright
/usr/share/doc/gnutls-bin/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libabw-0.1-1/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libcdr-0.1-1/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libe-book-0.1-1/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libeot0/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libetonyek-0.1-1/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libfreehand-0.1-1/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libgnutls28-dev/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libgnutls30/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libgnutls-dane0/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libgnutls-openssl27/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libgnutlsxx28/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libgs9-common/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libgs9/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libhttpclient-java/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libical3/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libjbig2dec0/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libmspub-0.1-1/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libmwaw-0.3-3/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libodfgen-0.1-1/copyright
/usr/share/doc/liborcus-0.15-0/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libpagemaker-0.0-0/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libpulse0/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libpulsedsp/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libpulse-mainloop-glib0/copyright
/usr/share/doc/librevenge-0.0-0/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libstaroffice-0.0-0/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libvisio-0.1-1/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libwpd-0.10-10/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libwpg-0.3-3/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libwps-0.4-4/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libzmf-0.0-0/copyright
/usr/share/doc/monit/copyright
/usr/share/doc/mupdf/copyright
/usr/share/doc/openjdk-11-jdk/copyright
/usr/share/doc/openjdk-11-jdk-headless/copyright
/usr/share/doc/openjdk-11-jre/copyright
/usr/share/doc/openjdk-11-jre-headless/copyright
/usr/share/doc/pithos/copyright
/usr/share/doc/poppler-data/copyright
/usr/share/doc/pulseaudio/copyright
/usr/share/doc/pulseaudio-module-gconf/copyright
/usr/share/doc/pulseaudio-module-zeroconf/copyright
/usr/share/doc/pulseaudio-utils/copyright
/usr/share/doc/python3-certifi/copyright
/usr/share/doc/python-certifi/copyright
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
> License: The main library is licensed under GNU Lesser
> General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1+, Gnutls Extra (which is currently
> just the openssl wrapper library), build system, testsuite and commandline
> utilities are licenced under the GNU General Public License version 3+. The
> Guile bindings use the same license as the respective underlying library,
> i.e. LGPLv2.1+ for the main library and GPLv3+ for Gnutls extra.
> 1.12. "Secondary License"
> means either the GNU General Public License, Version 2.0, the GNU
> Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1, the GNU Affero General
> Public License, Version 3.0, or any later versions of those
> licenses.
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
/usr/share/doc/anki/copyright
/usr/share/doc/debian-goodies/copyright
/usr/share/doc/debug-me/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libpulse0/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libpulsedsp/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libpulse-mainloop-glib0/copyright
/usr/share/doc/monit/copyright
/usr/share/doc/mupdf/copyright
/usr/share/doc/pithos/copyright
/usr/share/doc/pulseaudio/copyright
/usr/share/doc/pulseaudio-module-gconf/copyright
/usr/share/doc/pulseaudio-module-zeroconf/copyright
/usr/share/doc/pulseaudio-utils/copyright
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Sure, there are exceptions. I think the _only_ non-trivial software I've seen so far under pure AGPL is nextCloud. Almost everything else is either simple or dual-licensed.
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Here is a great retrospective on GPLv3 from a good friend of mine, Richard Fontana at Red Hat:
> campaign to get individual open source developers to extend the same commitment, and an announcement by Red Hat that henceforth GPLv2 and LGPLv2.x
> projects it leads will use the commitment language directly in project repositories."
> commitment language of GPLv3."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
me that it's unfair to call out Red Hat specifically for this, and in retrospect
I agree with him and would like to apologize to Red Hat.
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
- libraries.io, which is integrated into a number of platforms (inc. PYPI)
- F-Droid, the FOSS Android repository serving as an alternative to Google Plaay
- Pretty much the entire ActivityPub landscape
- Pelican, a very popular static-site-generator
- edX: MOOCs
- OctoPrint, the biggest FOSS for 3D-printer management
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLPlugins
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
> It depends on how the main program invokes its plug-ins.
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
>
> [snip GPL compatibility paragraph]
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
I have no problems with copyleft when it's clearly defined. For example, Linux is perfect in that regard because there's a clear and concise description of where the GPL stops.
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Wol
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Videos from the 2020 Copyleft Conference
Wol