Kippykip
BFG 9000
Yeah whenever I go on this thread it's about a bunch of lame licence stuff, this should be about development progress.
Power, Memory and Schematics
- Thread starter EvilDragon
- Start date
Xcl4m4t10n
Advanced Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,201
But they are changing the world with arguments!
Wait... No.
Wait... No.
spud42
Very Active Member
yep ED and HNS have said their peace said the licence stands as is so further discussion is pointless drivel, and whats more by now quite boring. I open this thread see more license BS and close it...
Kippykip
BFG 9000
Yeah same here
levi
Still fresh, damnit!
It would be quite hard work for a mod to separate out the license discussion from the other stuff though, I suspect, so I propose the solution is for people who want to post more circlejerk license stuff to bite their tongues, and let this thread quietly slide off the bottom of the news forum (which is will do anyway, no faster of slower than whether it's being posted to or not, due to the way that forum sorts its posts).
Christoph.Krn
Advanced Member
- The combined amount of time saved for all the regular users who keep checking this thread for the actual topic might far outclass the amount of time that any one moderator would have to spend using the thread split function (that I assume this board software provides).
- Moderators willfully agree to being moderators.
- The off-topic has continued for several pages, and multiple people have voiced their displeasure.
Hồng Thất Công
Đả Cẩu Bổng Pháp
I stopped reading this thread long ago...
rygD
Nihilistic Mystic
Keep the cookie if I get the Pyra quicker.
The best off-topic discussion is the off-topic discussion about off-topic discussions. Maybe we can all just let it go and try to bring it back on topic one more time, with a request that another thread be either bumped or created regarding licensing if people feel they must discuss it. Or not. I am also a part of the problem, and I walked away to avoid bombarding everyone else with (hidden) walls of text.
Kippykip
BFG 9000
SoooOOoo back on topic.
How's the 1.5ghz issue going?
ible
professional vim user
honestly it's not that off-topic...
Xcl4m4t10n
Advanced Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,201
It is not, but it was stated the final decisition, so more than off topic it have no sense. Anyway I personally don't care/bother about the thread, but maybe it should be splitted.
Last edited:
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").
Last edited:
rygD
Nihilistic Mystic
Well, I tried.
comradekingu
Glowing ember
I think it can stay. It only goes offtopic if a point has to be ran away from, which is quite telling:
This is what I got so far:
Should be closed instead
The critique that closed is better than non-commercial, is bunk for two reasons:
*If you like copyleft, non-commercial is no threat to it, because it doesnt carry with it the same virality.
*The license can change, and there are no additional licenseholders to take part here. This is all under control
Should be Free as in Libre
That last point above covers it being free in the future, and also, its a case of patent law, not copyright.
*There is nobody disagreeing or trying to take this away. It is more of a matter of being able to facilitate it while balancing a lot of other things. First and foremost building hardware and getting it on the market, which takes priority over exploring the subtleties of international patent law.
Should be Open
The critique that it should be open rather than Free Is bunk
for reasons it actually is open already, and that is what open means. You see the schematics, they are undoubtedly open. I dont know how source can translate to schematics any closer.
So lets contest the point of what open is. Not everyone subscribes to the OSI denomination of open source, and there is nothing disagreeing with it will do.
Companies doing this will sell you things like the OpenPandora. Im not sold on the OSI being a neccesity more than free means necessarily freedom or gratis in English. Free software however, used in instances such as a free software foundation, necessitates libre.
Should be Copyleft
The sharing back clause is actually there, it just lacks the commercial one.
In conclusion:
It is 3/4 Free (libre) software.
It is 4/5 Copyleft
It is Open
It is Non-Commercial
This is what I got so far:
Should be closed instead
The critique that closed is better than non-commercial, is bunk for two reasons:
*If you like copyleft, non-commercial is no threat to it, because it doesnt carry with it the same virality.
*The license can change, and there are no additional licenseholders to take part here. This is all under control
Should be Free as in Libre
That last point above covers it being free in the future, and also, its a case of patent law, not copyright.
*There is nobody disagreeing or trying to take this away. It is more of a matter of being able to facilitate it while balancing a lot of other things. First and foremost building hardware and getting it on the market, which takes priority over exploring the subtleties of international patent law.
Should be Open
The critique that it should be open rather than Free Is bunk
for reasons it actually is open already, and that is what open means. You see the schematics, they are undoubtedly open. I dont know how source can translate to schematics any closer.
So lets contest the point of what open is. Not everyone subscribes to the OSI denomination of open source, and there is nothing disagreeing with it will do.
Companies doing this will sell you things like the OpenPandora. Im not sold on the OSI being a neccesity more than free means necessarily freedom or gratis in English. Free software however, used in instances such as a free software foundation, necessitates libre.
Should be Copyleft
The sharing back clause is actually there, it just lacks the commercial one.
In conclusion:
It is 3/4 Free (libre) software.
It is 4/5 Copyleft
It is Open
It is Non-Commercial
S
sulu
Guest
I intended not to post in this thread again, but after having proven this wrong with links and quotes I can't let it slide:
So unless you can reference another OH license from a reputable source that clearly states that NC is ok according to their OH definition I'll just tell you again, that this license does not meet the criteria of open hardware.
btw&imho:
I don't think there can be a thing like 3/4 Free software. A software either is or is not Free. And I'm fairly confident, RMS would agree with me if you asked him.
Those two points contradict each other, be it by the standards of the OSHWA, by those of the OSI, or those of the FSF. (Not that the latter two would have any say when it comes to hardware design licenses.)
So unless you can reference another OH license from a reputable source that clearly states that NC is ok according to their OH definition I'll just tell you again, that this license does not meet the criteria of open hardware.
btw&imho:
I don't think there can be a thing like 3/4 Free software. A software either is or is not Free. And I'm fairly confident, RMS would agree with me if you asked him.
rygD
Nihilistic Mystic
Wrong.
directive0
Very Active Member
comradekingu
Glowing ember
That is open to debate,
English works like this, you put a word in front of another, and it qualifies that word.
Open, is such a word, it is a verb. You don't get to call it a specialist term, because it isn't, and you don't get a trademark on it, for precisely the same reason.
Open source, means the source is open. It is one of many freedoms. OSI-open source is 4 of them. Copyleft is 5.
One, open, two three four, free, five copyleft.
Open isn't the first freedom, so why is just (1)?
What is interesting here is that open does not even guarantee freedom zero, to use it in any way you please.
I never said it was free software, i said it was 3/4 of it. If you cut off a human at the axles up, you are left with 3/4. Platon would disagree, and make a reasonable point that we could get into.
In the case of the pyra hardware license, it is a meaningful 3/4, if you were going to lose one out of 4, or even 5 for copyleft, it would be the non-commercial bit.
Saying the pyra hardware license is open, is true, but it isn't that meaningful, not because that freedom isn't important, and valuable even alone, it is because
Open is not a specific word. It means access. Access to whatever word you want to qualify as open after it, be it open source, open schematics, or what have you.
It means free as in freedom software no more than use as you please, modify, or share. It means in most sentences, or without an implied understanding, libre software at the exact same rate free software means gratis. Because yes, as you are pointing out, talking about free software in less than free as in freedom, as per the definition, is vague, meaningless, possibly devious, or all of them.
And open is just that, and im a certifier. To qualify as zingu- open source, it must be open, can be vague, meaningless, possibly devious, or all of them.
Edit: Btw, oshwa deals with hardware. 'Open hardware' is, albeit for the time being, a specific term. It is a social term, so you could hollow it out if you wanted to. That will probably happen, as the different open hardware licenses differ widely in terms of grasp, legality and protection.
So, to counter your point. No, FSF or OSI standards do not govern open source. I believe the FSF coined Free software with the definition it holds today, but that is beside the point.
Yes, free software is a glass-is-always full ordeal, but open, or open source, does not at all rule out non-commercial.
While free as in freedom software is no longer free once it is non-commercial, open, or open souce, is just as open, or open source if it is non-commercial.
You are cherry-picking organizations, and confusing it with hardware.
There are a whole lot of open source licenses that are non-commercial. The MAME-license comes to mind. At-least one open hardware license has been non-commercial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAPR_Open_Hardware_License#Noncommercial_license
Even licenses not intended for software can be open, and non-commercial https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/
English works like this, you put a word in front of another, and it qualifies that word.
Open, is such a word, it is a verb. You don't get to call it a specialist term, because it isn't, and you don't get a trademark on it, for precisely the same reason.
Open source, means the source is open. It is one of many freedoms. OSI-open source is 4 of them. Copyleft is 5.
One, open, two three four, free, five copyleft.
Open isn't the first freedom, so why is just (1)?
What is interesting here is that open does not even guarantee freedom zero, to use it in any way you please.
I never said it was free software, i said it was 3/4 of it. If you cut off a human at the axles up, you are left with 3/4. Platon would disagree, and make a reasonable point that we could get into.
In the case of the pyra hardware license, it is a meaningful 3/4, if you were going to lose one out of 4, or even 5 for copyleft, it would be the non-commercial bit.
Saying the pyra hardware license is open, is true, but it isn't that meaningful, not because that freedom isn't important, and valuable even alone, it is because
Open is not a specific word. It means access. Access to whatever word you want to qualify as open after it, be it open source, open schematics, or what have you.
It means free as in freedom software no more than use as you please, modify, or share. It means in most sentences, or without an implied understanding, libre software at the exact same rate free software means gratis. Because yes, as you are pointing out, talking about free software in less than free as in freedom, as per the definition, is vague, meaningless, possibly devious, or all of them.
And open is just that, and im a certifier. To qualify as zingu- open source, it must be open, can be vague, meaningless, possibly devious, or all of them.
Edit: Btw, oshwa deals with hardware. 'Open hardware' is, albeit for the time being, a specific term. It is a social term, so you could hollow it out if you wanted to. That will probably happen, as the different open hardware licenses differ widely in terms of grasp, legality and protection.
So, to counter your point. No, FSF or OSI standards do not govern open source. I believe the FSF coined Free software with the definition it holds today, but that is beside the point.
Yes, free software is a glass-is-always full ordeal, but open, or open source, does not at all rule out non-commercial.
While free as in freedom software is no longer free once it is non-commercial, open, or open souce, is just as open, or open source if it is non-commercial.
You are cherry-picking organizations, and confusing it with hardware.
There are a whole lot of open source licenses that are non-commercial. The MAME-license comes to mind. At-least one open hardware license has been non-commercial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAPR_Open_Hardware_License#Noncommercial_license
Even licenses not intended for software can be open, and non-commercial https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/
Last edited:
