[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] ethical edtech edit-a-thon

From: Aaron Wolf
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] ethical edtech edit-a-thon
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 14:00:01 -0700

Most of the clarifications from Adonay are correct, however the software
freedom movement does not support any patenting of software generally.
That some cases of software patents used defensively might exist in
practice is a complex issue. But in general, there is correct consensus
that software patents should never have been legally allowed at all.

On 2019-03-30 1:04 p.m., Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> Em 11/03/2019 20:18, Erin Glass escreveu:
>> I'm writing to let you know about the 'Ethical Ed Tech
>> <>' wiki and
>> edit-a-thon on April 3 that may be of interest to the free software
>> community.
> Nice initiative indeed. Awesome! :D
> As for the definitions of free/libre software and the other one, open
> source, I think that the graph and explanation in [1] and [2] provide
> insights on when those differ. The page in [2] does a wonderful job on
> explaining in abstract what I'll say in this message, Besides, in the
> field of *strategies* or *tactics* as to how to foster or advance
> software freedom, the two groups also differ strongly, as can be seen in
> various works such as [3][4][5][6]. Particularly, [6] explains why you
> might see some people debating or advocating for stronger and auto
> upgradable copyleft licenses such as AGPL-3.0-or-later for every kind of
> work.
> Technically, free/libre software activists and open source proponents
> can work together in a given project, but they'll mostly disagree in
> regards to which aspects to priorize in the balance between freedom of
> the software for the very-end-user vs. other characteristic (e.g.: ease
> of use, graphical friendliness, speed, adoption by other people).
> In practice, Open Source Initiative's definition of open source seems to
> enable works with digital handcuffs to fit in nicely to that category.
> These handcuffs are ways that the copyright holders found to go beyond
> the copyright law so as to take some already-given freedoms of the
> software away from the very-end-user, measure also known for being
> para-copyright[7]. Thus, the non-compliants can take a GPL-2.0-only work
> and make derivated works that are distributed as cryptographically
> signed execuables in smartphones/tablets and even in the engine control
> units that decide how a car will develop/work while being driven, in
> devices or vehicles that do signature checks to see if the cryptographic
> keys and the binary/executable match.
> This is such a problem that there are people in the free/libre software
> movement advocating for the use of strong and auto upgradable copyleft
> licenses (the AGPL-3.0-or-later comes to mind).
> Trademarks (simply put: the registered logos and friendly names that
> appear everywhere) are also accepted in the free/libre software movement
> as long as the trademark *policies* don't take away the essential
> freedoms of the software. Patents (which describe how to do something in
> detail) are also accepted to some extent, with the advantage that the
> GPL-3.0-or-later and AGPL-3.0-or-later provide better legal provisions
> in favor of both the original copyright holders and the very-end-users[8].
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]
> [5]
> [6]
> [7]
> [8]
> [9]
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]