Saying one thing and doing the other
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| r_a_trip Apr 14, 2009 3:42 AM EDT |
However, the sad truth is that if we did not offer a patent-agnostic license we would have made all efforts to have an open source reference implementation moot. Which would have been better. This license doesn't grant freedoms which we don't already have. We will end up with the situation that the LAME codec is in. You can shovel around the source as much as you want, but if you compile it for use, you are a potential patent infringer. The only thing this license will do, is legitimize the practice of locking down of FOSS with patents. It will be the poster example of proprietary interest to point at when the community fights against patents. "FOSS is not against the use of patents to protect IP. See the MXM license, written by FOSS supporters themselves" Why do we keep "poisoning the well" ourselves? Mr. Piana undoubtedly is a fierce proponent of software freedom, but despite all his protestations he still is the one producing an OSL with patent encumbrance expressly built in. I don't think the "I just pulled the trigger, it was the bullet that killed!" defense has much credibility. |
| hkwint Apr 14, 2009 11:01 AM EDT |
Moreover, in my opinion he shouldn't use the term 'FOSS' when he means 'not FS, maybe OSS'. |
| azerthoth Apr 14, 2009 12:42 PM EDT |
Funny, I subscribe to license-discuss, so I have followed this loosly from its start. Somewhere in the first 30 seconds of it's life I discounted the whole thing as asinine, and many others seem to have oratorically taken the same stance. The license is a non starter IMHO, and should be stuffed into the bit bucket under the premise of non-proliferation. my .02 |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!