Comment on Which FOSS licence would you suggest me?

• JoeBidet@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  this website seems very biased to me as it is written by a Microsoft company.

  • it uses overly complex legal mumbo jumbo to describe the copyleft licenses, while describing the non-copyleft ones in friendly terms "A short and simple permissive license with conditions only requiring..." making them more appealing somehow.
  • it mentions a permission to PATENT things, with all licenses. when software patents must be banned, and in practices only exist in some weird loophole in the EU. While FSF site reads as "GPLv3 also provides users with explicit patent protection from the program's contributors and redistributors. " (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html )
  • it propagates the meme that allowing ppl to make proprietary crap out of your software is "permissive". like if having the right to own slaves would give you... more freedom...?

  source

  • vpzom ⁨3⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    • This page has existed long before GitHub was owned by Microsoft, so that's not really a meaningful claim
    • My reading of the patent stuff is that the licenses that mention them disallow the authors from patenting the software, but I agree that that's not super clear from the page itself
    • Permissive is the established term for such a license, I don't know what else you'd call it that isn't offensive
• realcaseyrollins ⁨3⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  Very cool! Thank you!