REUSE makes copyright and licensing easier than ever

[labbe5]

https://fsfe.org/news/2019/news-20190807-01.en.html

The licensing of a software project is critical information. Developers set the terms under which others can reuse their software, from individuals to giant corporations. Authors want to make sure that others adhere to their chosen licenses; potential re-users have to know the license of third-party software before publication; and companies have to ensure license compliance in their products that often build on top of existing projects. The REUSE project, led by the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE), helps all of these parties.

REUSE is already being used by various software projects like the Linux kernel, and recommended by other license compliance initiatives like OpenChain.

[technosaurus]

There is no question on the re-usability of 0BSD, CC0, unlicense, WTFPL or similar public domain dedication. MIT, ISC and BSD have minimal requirements.

Only crap from the FSF makes it require an organization with a staff of lawyers to ensure compliance. Any license that is shitty enough that contributors to a project need to assign their copyright to a project's organization needs to die a slow, painful death. This is the beginning of that slow, painful death - die GPL die already.

[nosystemdthanks]

Any license that is shitty enough that contributors to a project need to assign their copyright to a project's organization needs to die a slow, painful death.

this is not aimed at you personally, but what youre saying here is just nonsense.

its nonsense because that requirement simply does not exist.

people can, if they want an organisation to be able to Do Their Legal Work For them, OPT to assign their copyright to the fsf to make it easier for them to facilitate that.

as to why they might want to opt for that, there is a good explanation that you clearly have something personal against.

i wont try to change your mind, i will certainly point out why youre making a mistake for other people reading the thread.

This is the beginning of that slow, painful death - die GPL die already.

the point of this tool is to make it easier to track large amounts of legal stuff in a shorter time. this is important to companies who want to use gpl licensed works. its a tool to help them.

i understand that you have something against the gpl, thats clear enough.

here is why the gpl is a good thing-- you like the linux kernel?

torvalds himself said that choosing gpl2 was the best decision he ever made. why? probably because it means that people who like the kernel and want to redistribute it, have to make their changes public.

if not for that, the (standard) linux kernel would have fewer features and less support for hardware.

it was necessary for the ongoing development of the kernel, for so many features as well as the fixes and improvements.

it is not necessary for every project-- i use cc0 myself. my projects tend to have the features they need already-- people are welcome to add more, though the level of maintenance a kernel needs has nothing to do with the stuff i write.

your wish for the gpl to die is a wish for a lame, ill-adapted, low-feature kernel. to some degree i can appreciate the merits of that, but overall it is a huge mistake. the best way to have a low-feature kernel is to remove features. that way the features it has will be well-maintained.

as to why torvalds rejected gpl3, he was lobbied to by a front group working for microsoft.

thats right-- microsoft lobbied against gpl3, and influenced the licensing that linux uses, working to divide the free software ecosystem as part of their war against all of us.

and uh, you seem to be (unwittingly) on their side regarding this issue.

the microsoft front group that lobbied against gpl3 adoption is the "association for competitive technology."

old story on what kind of nastiness microsoft encourages (what they really think of developers): https://yro.slashdot.org/story/07/01/09 ... ght-stands

just to be clear, none of this is a knock on the bsd kernel-- the bsd kernel is very high quality stuff.

that high quality stuff took years to liberate from corporations that were trying to monopolise it after contributors spent years adding to it, and although bsd isnt a lame, low-feature kernel-- it certainly offers less support for many things than the linux kernel.

i know it seems paradoxical that a license that asks more would be more popular-- but all the same, more people use linux than bsd.

its not because bsd is an inferior kernel-- its a very good kernel-- it just supports less of what the people who choose the linux kernal want. i wouldnt say linux is superior-- just better adapted to the many needs of its users. you can still thank the gpl for that.

you wont, but it isnt about gratitude-- its about a realistic (sensible) evaluation of the merits of the gpl. you cant trash the gpl AND explain the success of gnu/linux. you can trash it and make torvalds success into something mysterious and unexplained, if it pleases you.