A big step for us here at LastOS -- and to get the serious recognition for the work being done here -- is that for this upcoming final release I've instituted GNU General Public License (GPLv3) licensing for the SetupS Suite. So why GPLv3? I've being doing some extensive research on the subject -- and there are seemingly thousands of "issues" (and licenses) to consider. Besides looking into something to satisfy all our needs here at LastOS -- both present and future -- there were several things that swayed me in favor of GPLv3. One was that it is extremely easy to adopt. Another is that it seems very popular with most open-source projects (certainly the major ones). And finally, it's damn near "bulletproof" as far as I can tell -- it's pretty complete and thorough for coverage of just about every legal issue (ever) encountered with free and/or open-source software; but that's probably because it's been around for so long. In fact, I think if Bittorrent/uTorrent had had a similar license they would not have been ambushed with this lastest patent troll. I believe this will greatly improve the reputation of LastOS tools (especially if ALL the tools adopt the licensing as well), and will align us nicely with a lot of the major players and sites out there supporting Open-Source Software development. For those interested, I've complied a couple good sources of info: http://www.gnu.org/licenses(in particular this one regarding GPLv3: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html)http://opensource.org/linkshttp://www.fsf.org/campaigns/gnu-press/gpl-biblio "To stay free, software must be copyrighted and licensed." -- Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, Senior corporate attorney for Microsoft Corporation.
Good move, Freezer. From what I gather from looking over the GPLv3 link you provided, there's not a problem with the software having been created using a commercial product tool, ie RB, and that tool being required if the user wants to modify the code? I don't think so from what I read, but just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page with our understanding of the situation. I agree that this will help us to be taken more seriously.
Yes, absolutely. This is because the copyright on editors and tools does not cover the content (or code) you produce using them. If I write an article using Microsoft Office Word then the copyright belongs to me not Microsoft. Another example, SetupS v7 was written in in Microsoft Visual Basic but Microsoft cannot claim a copyright on RON's work even though it depends on Microsoft's run-time libraries. The same also holds true the other direction. Say I used the GPL-covered EMACS to write an AutoIt utility... that doesn't mean I have to use GPL licensing on that utility -- I could choose a proprietary a license that is the total opposite polarity to the GPL.
Now, more than ever, am I happy we've adopted GPLv3... especially to help protect us from this latest lunacy: "When using open source makes you an enemy of the state" Basically, if you use FOSS, you must be a filthy pirate ... ARRRR, Yo Ho a pirate's life for me!
One of the things I do not understand is how it continues to be an issue. As an example California has one of most restrictive regulations for modification of your automobile. However if you want to put a Cummings 4bt in your Dodge Charger go for it with the blessing of the DMV and California government. I believe that Dodge design is a much intellectual property as software is. Chrysler may not repo your Charger just because modified it. But then I am not a lawyer. I suppose conventional logic cannot be applied in this case.
It seems that not one large corporation is eager for you to actually own anything... They are more interested in creating and maintaining a 'relationship' with you, which is to say: "We would like you to be perpetually indebted to us."
