Search results

Well, here is the problem with licenses, they are sticky and stay with us forever. And in the long run a mis-selection of a license WILL make problems and collide with valid use cases. We see that now more and more in the FOSS software domain: for instance the collision of Linux kernel (GPLv2) +...

I think you run out of arguments ;) indeed. an example is DONKEY.BAS by Bill Gates, distributed as source code. ;) (I think it was ported for the Pandora) More examples are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_video_games_with_available_source_code Maybe the FSF under RMS...

Well, it was not Lessig, it was this group (with FSF influence) after Lessig. EDIT: this is the required read by Mako hill https://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html The argument is here, the GPL losses mindshares since 2007, permissive licensing won, the GPLv3 fragmented the...

If fully agree that extremistic positions and licenses might have the worst impact on any kinds of open/free ecosystems. (e.g. see the downfall of the copyleft ecosystem due to the splitting push of the FSF with the GPLv3) Therefore I liked Lawrence Lessig's Creative Commons and their approach...

(Response only for the sake of historical accuracy: ;) ) At least in the past there RMS woudl have disagreed, he defined then indeed semi-free software. A classification which was later removed from the FSF terminology. (again, for the sake of historical accuracy) The RMS/FSF doesn't "coined"...

And I praise you for your discipline ...which I miss obviously ;)

I think they indicated that a different license might happen later... which fuels discussions with its undefindness (what was the problem already before with the original announcement about Pyra's "openness").

Fine, how about the FSF requesting CLAs in form of copyright transfers for GNU projects to the FSF? Makes that GNU software "source available" or non-free? Like in the GNU Nano controversy? Or the previous GNUTLS contoversy? Is the FSF missing the point of free and open source software? ... I...

OT reply on FSF stuff

hmmm, this seems to be a serious topic for you, are you involved with the FSF or a member? Well, the FSF it tries since years to water down and downplay "open source", for instance by claiming "open source" is weakly defined and is the same as source available. I dislike, I have to admit, this...

Well, well, the project organisators and the developers who take the financial, development and operational risk, utilize and rely on the existing community in many ways. Also financially,1000 preorders are approx. a half million $ (1000 x 400$), we should not downplay that. Practically, it is a...

Sorry, "openess" is not an "extra" but a key element of the Pyra, so this is not derailing as this was here now finally defined (while I agree an extra thread would be appropriate). While it is fine that some care only for the device they can later hold in their hands themselves and perceive...

I agree, to open the precious work from years to the public requires balls, kudos to the developers for that. And therefore it is so frustrating to see an "almost!". I would have not opened the design that way & now. The license protects primarly the document not the schematic therefore maybe...

well, than the value of the license being NC is even less clear. Yes, I can fully get behind that, that the Pyra & its developers deserves some protection for some time. But then, a time-bomb license or a promise to the community that the design material will be open and free in the...

reddit discussion

Yes having the schematic itself under a proper hardware license would be a great plus. Yes, but this prevents also the adding on free-to-share places like wikipedia or the creative commons, which allow as most restrictive license the CC-BY-SA. Well, as orphaned works are a serious problem...

Great thank you very much for opening up the pyra material! Regarding the nc clause, while it is maybe very reasonable to use this clause now, core issue with it is the ambiguity of "commercial". Which might prevent community usage as collateral damage (additionally to wkipedia or wikimedia...

thank you very much! :)