Skip to Content
Last modified by chrisby on 2025/01/11 10:03
From version 2.123
edited by chrisby
on 2025/01/11 09:56
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 2.109
edited by chrisby
on 2025/01/08 13:28
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -47,17 +47,18 @@
47 47  
48 48  **Copyleft Licenses**
49 49  
50 -To address problems with proprietary software, the FSF promotes copyleft licenses, such as the AGPL, which require that any derivative works remain under the same license.
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 here is a common understanding is: If the AGPL code is essential for the software to work, then the software is considered a derivative product. For example:
51 51  
52 -The term "derivative work" is somewhat vague in legal terms, but a common interpretation is that software that depends on AGPL code to function is a derivative work.
52 +* When a software needs AGPL source code directly its a derivate work. that means using a AGPL licensed library or directly AGPL code into the project makes it a proprietary product.
53 +* Another is when a software uses an external AGPL service via network.
54 + * If the AGPL service is not essential and an optional extension to the software, then it not considered a derivative work.
55 + * If the AGPL service is an essential or even a mandatry part of the software, then it is considered a derivative work. For example, A vendor could come up with the idea to use AGPL code for his propieatary software, but out sources it into a s seaprate service assessible via network, so his proprietary software does not need the AGPL code directly, but does not work without it either. The proprietary software is closely coupled to the AGPL code. This is considereThis attempt to circumvent the AGPL is prevented thorugh the license as this is considere.
53 53  
54 -For example, if a project directly incorporates AGPL source code or relies on an AGPL library, it must adopt the AGPL license for its entire code base. Similarly, if software calls an external AGPL service over a network and the service is purely optional, the software is not considered a derivative work. However, if the service is essential and the software won't work without it, even if the AGPL code is hosted externally, the software is still considered a derivative work. Therefore, attempting to "work around" the AGPL by outsourcing essential functions in a network service will not avoid the license requirements.
57 +This ensures that when contributions are made to a copyleft project, or when copyleft code is directly reused 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.
55 55  
56 -In summary, copyleft licenses like the AGPL ensure that whenever code is reused or contributions are made to existing code, the resulting work must remain open source. These licenses also require that the source code be made available upon request, so that users can modify, build, and control the software themselves if they wish.
57 -
58 58  **License Preferences**
59 59  
60 -The OSI aims to maximize the contributions and impact of open source by being neutral and open to all licenses that meet the open source definition, whether permissive or copyleft. The FSF accepts all open source licenses, but has a strong preference for copyleft licenses.
61 +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.
61 61  
62 62  **User Behavior**
63 63  
... ... @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@
71 71  
72 72  **Does a permissive or copyleft project lead to more contributions?**
73 73  
74 -* Permissive licenses might attract more users, especially vendors, and lead to more voluntary contributions. Copyleft licenses, on the other hand, might repel some contributors, but force improvements to be open-sourced and shared with the community. Which effect is greater depends on the situation.
75 +* Permissive licenses might attract more users, especially vendors, and lead to more voluntary contributions. Copyleft licenses, on the other hand, might repel some of them, but force improvements to be open-sourced and shared with the community. Which effect is greater depends on the situation.
75 75  
76 76  **Why should people with no technical expertise care about open source?**
77 77