Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On Jun 5, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:

I'm first and foremost an end user, so I'm not concerned about the license as far this doesn't 
allow corporations like IBM to keep their predatory attitude vs end users.

So, my stance for copyleft is very practical: proprietary software predates basic end users, like 
myself, obfuscating problems and code, and I think that the only way to avoid this is to force 
corporations to use copyleft (I know, they'll never accept, but at ths point I prefer them to pay 
for all the development and related activities).

Well, my opinion is that by having a non-copyleft version available,
it removes the incentive for commercial entities to create their
own versions, which will be obviously totally proprietary. Putting
it another way, if the only open source version is copyleft, then
you will not see commercial entities use it, simply because it
requires their own "secret sauce" bits to be forcibly donated.
So they won't use it at all and, instead, create their own from
scratch. And there is risk associated with that...


especially the 'Why Apache Software is Free' version.

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.