[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages |
Date: |
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 13:16:55 -0400 |
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
I wrote
> Under the malign influence of GitHub, developers often don't bother to
> put on a license.
You responded
> Github actively encourages users to specify the license.
which appears to disagree. However,there is no conflict between what
you report and what I wrote. They appear to conflict, but they really
don't conflict.
You report what GitHub says NOW. That is a change Github made in
response to the failing grade we gave GitHub two years ago in
https://gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html.
The change was an improvement, but it doesn't erase the past.
GitHub operated for many years presenting "no license" as a fine
alternative.
Thus, I stand by what I wrote. During those years, GitHub spread a
malign influence against putting on a license. The effects continue
to spread among the users.
Should we forgive GitHub for the past harm? That depends on how hard
GitHub works now to correct the past harm.
I don't remember the specifics of what GitHub says now -- I saw it
over a year ago. ISTR it was not a strong and firm policy, and I was
disappointed. It was less bad, but not very good. You described it
with the word "encourages", which also suggests it is not strong and
firm.
A weak policy will not suffice, in practice, to undo the past harm.
A strong and firm policy would mean telling all the users: "Warning:
if a source file has no license, you are not authorized to copy it or
redistribute it, let alone change it." And then saying, "Upload of
software source files not carrying a clear license is not permitted --
don't do it here!"
If GitHub did that, the FSF would welcome its efforts to undo the past
harm, and would no longer blame present-day GitHub for it. (Our other
criticisms of GitHub, on other issues, would remain active.)
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages, (continued)
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages, Richard Stallman, 2017/07/30
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages, Jonas Bernoulli, 2017/07/28
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages, Richard Stallman, 2017/07/28
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages, Jonas Bernoulli, 2017/07/29
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages, Richard Stallman, 2017/07/29
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages, Richard Stallman, 2017/07/29
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages, Jonas Bernoulli, 2017/07/28
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages, Karl Fogel, 2017/07/28
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages, Richard Stallman, 2017/07/29
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages, Richard Stallman, 2017/07/30
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages, Richard Stallman, 2017/07/17
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages, Jonas Bernoulli, 2017/07/28
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages, Mats Lidell, 2017/07/29
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages, Richard Stallman, 2017/07/29
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages, Richard Stallman, 2017/07/29
- Re: Some hard numbers on licenses used by elisp packages, Mats Lidell, 2017/07/29