Changes for page 3. Free Software and Open Source Software

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -47,14 +47,12 @@
47	47
48	48	**Copyleft Licenses**
49	49
50		-**To address the problems with proprietary software, the FSF primarily promotes copyleft licenses, which require that any derivative works of the software be licensed under the same terms as the original code. The term "derivative work" is legally somewhat vague, but a common understanding is that if the AGPL code is essential for the software to work, then the software is considered a derivative work. For example:**
	50	+To address problems with proprietary software, the FSF promotes copyleft licenses, like the AGPL license, which require that any derivative works remain under the same license. The notion of “derivative work” is somewhat vague in legal terms, but a common interpretation is that software depending on AGPL code to function is a derivative work.
51	51
52		-**If a software needs AGPL source code directly, it is a derivative work. this means that using an AGPL licensed library or putting AGPL code directly into the project makes it a proprietary product.
53		-Another example is when software uses an external AGPL service over the network.
54		-If the AGPL service is not essential and is an optional addition to the software, then it is not considered a derivative work.
55		-If the AGPL service is an essential or even mandatory part of the software, then it is considered a derivative work. For example, a vendor might come up with the idea to use AGPL code in his proprietary software, but out-source it into a shareable service accessible over a network, so that his proprietary software does not directly need the AGPL code, but does not work without it. The proprietary software is tightly coupled to the AGPL code. This is still considered a derivative work, so this attempt to bypass the AGPL is prevented by the license.
56		-This copyleft license ensures that when contributions are made to a copyleft project, or when copylefted code is reused directly in another project, the resulting work must be released under the same copyleft license. This prevents vendors from incorporating copyleft code into proprietary products, and ensures that any derivative works remain open source. In addition, copyleft licenses require that the source code be made available to users so that they can modify, build, and control the software themselves.**
	52	+For instance, if a project directly incorporates AGPL source code or relies on an AGPL library, it must adopt the AGPL license for its entire codebase. Similarly, when software calls an external AGPL service over a network, the software is typically not a derivative work if that service is purely optional. However, if the service is essential and the software won’t function without it, even if the AGPL code is hosted externally, the software is still considered a derivative work. Attempting to “bypass” the AGPL by outsourcing essential functions in a network service will not avoid the license requirements.
57	57
	54	+In summary, this copyleft license ensures that whenever AGPL code is reused, or when contributions are made to existing copyleft code, the resulting work must remain open source. Athe  also guarantees that the source code is available so users can modify, build, and control the software themselves.
	55	+
58	58	**License Preferences**
59	59
60	60	The OSI aims to maximize the contributions and impact of open source by being open to all open source licenses. Permissive licenses have become very popular in recent years, especially in commercial contexts, but the OSI is open to choosing copyleft licenses if developers want to ensure that derivative works remain open and free. The FSF, on the other hand, tolerates all open source licenses, but has a strong preference for copyleft licenses, believing that all software should be protected in this way.