The EXCITEMENT of Open Source Licenses | Linux Literate 3

Video is ready, Click Here to View ×


If you’re a developer and you want to Open Source your code, check out

You can find me on these socials:
Liberapay:
Patreon:
Twitch:
Twitter:
Facebook:

You can email me at gardiner-at-heavyelement-dot-io

Common questions:
What distro do you use?
On my office PC I use Ubuntu 17.10 with the stylish Pop! theme by…

35 Comments

  1. Probably there wouldn't be so much bias concerning proprietary or closed-source, but for all the legal and ethical violations by micro-softie corporation. Companies should be excited about competition, as it drives we-the-creators to build new features, making our product even better. Instead, micro-softie used their market dominance to quell development by other authors. Want to build a better archiving routine? Don't bother, as "windows" includes .ZIP. Realplayer got beaten by "media player," as did Eudora by outlook. Today you could perhaps introduce an application, but 15 years ago, no chance!

  2. I'm working on a copyleft character license that allows characters released under it to be used in any project, even proprietary ones, provided that representation of the character themself is released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 or higher. Say for instance, someone makes a game with a character under this license and makes their own sprites or voice clips. The game may be sold and be kept closed source, but the assets of the character must be made open, or else the developer must allow people to "rip" the assets themselves and share/modify/use them without fear of legal consequence. And, of course, the character's owner may define attribution instructions, such as linking back to their site or just dropping their name in the credits.

    What I'm aiming for to create a license that means anyone who works with a character must also contribute something back to the community at large in exchange for getting to use them. It would also mean character designers would be able to get more positive publicity by allowing others to use their characters in fan projects without worrying about DMCA takedowns, as well as creating a plethora of assets they can use in canon works. Essentially, my goal is to foster a symbiotic relationship between character creators and their fans.

    Only problem I'm having is getting my idea into legalese so that people will actually want to use the license. I don't suppose anyone here knows someone who can write a well-worded license?

  3. The best nice try…u got the enthusiasms in the rigth place but got confused by the concept… at minute 22 of the video "history of Linux"were mr.torvalds announce his betrayal was clearly stated that open source was a cover up to avoid using the world freedom and go with the convince blah blah blah…Everywhere u got the chance to see mr Stallman complain about this omission. N Remember…THAT,The truth shall set u LIBRE…

  4. I really want to see a marriage of Free/Open Source and profitability. It seems that, sadly, it's still very hard to sell open-source software and make a living. If it were profitable to be open and freedom respecting, we'd see more of that! How can we make it more so? Perhaps we should focus more on funding the process of development (think kickstarter / patreon?) rather than selling virtual 'copies' of software (a concept that doesn't even make sense in a world where things are immaterial and can be copied instantly and for free).

  5. I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux,
    is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux.
    Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component
    of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell
    utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

    Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day,
    without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU
    which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are
    not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

    There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a
    part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system
    that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run.
    The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself;
    it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is
    normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system
    is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux"
    distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

  6. Hello Gartner, I feel like lately your videos always end abruptly. Aside from the Ubuntu Data video. It almost seems like you emphasize on many interesting thoughts, revolve into the same one or two concepts over and over again and then end it with a "So those were my thoughts on (fill) what do you think about etc..". In my opinion you should lenghten your videos a bit but that's just my opinion. In any case keep up the good work, cheers.

  7. Open source licensed software is great, but not from a developer's perspective. I mean, I like the fact that they exist, and developers can choose to use them. I think some developers have their reasons to make their software open-source. The problem is not with the licenses, but with the users. I know everyone likes free software, but I think it is perfectly understandable for a developer or a software company to sell their proprietary software. It is very annoying when you see people talking against paid and closed-source software. Unfortunately, the linux community is known for this harmful attitude.

  8. Freedom is the individual and the collective control we have over systems (social or technical) we depend on in order to satisfy our real individual and collective needs. With proprietary license user has no control (or freedom) over the software she/he depends on, the freedom is denied to the end user and the small group of proprietary software developers have undemocratic control and monopoly. Why does proprietary license exists? It is very simple. It is part of unjust and immoral legal framework used in order to sell software as a commodity via the market (as a system of distribution). In order for a product (good or service) to be distributed via the market system, at least two conditions must be satisfied: 1st the product must be scarce, 2nd ownership of product is guaranteed by the law. Created software comes as a digital artifact which is inherently abundant (you can make copies of it almost without any effort). Making the created software artificially scarce just to force the free market ideology is immoral and the laws that enable that are unjust. Software development must be viewed as a service that is supported by donations or by contracts.

  9. In science, I heard about reprogramming viruses to help the body. Richard Stallman made the GPL to act like such to benefit the user, as you explained at the end.
    I am sure you are getting started with the GPL and will begin explaining the difference versions.

    Great job sir!

  10. Brill video and explained slot in the short time. Could I please ask as if your background music could be changed a bit as it seemed to conflict with your voice tone making it hard for me to follow some bits. Others may think different, I know. This doesn't take away my thanks for the info as I am currently in transition from Windows to Linux and for the first time put steam on a Linux only pc.

  11. Every licence has its valid point. GPL for example is horrible for libraries as everyone using the library has to also licence under GPL. LGPL fixes that a bit, but it only makes sense in compiled languages like C or Rust. MIT is simple and permissive, but leaves a big questionmark on licence of contributed code and on software patents. This is fixed by the Apache2 licence that forces all contributors to licence their contribution under Apache2 and grants has a weak patent rejection clause included. Some people prefer BSD + hard patent rejectiin clause (Facebooks' react had this), but this is aweful for companies using the software as it may lead to legal trouble.

    So the easiest and safe way to licence your code is: Use GPL for Applications, where you dont want parts of it to be used commercially. Use Apache for everything else.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*