From: Alejandro Colomar <alx-AT-kernel.org>

Hi all,

As you know, I’ve been maintaining the Linux man-pages project for the last 4 years as a voluntary. I’ve been doing it in my free time, and no company has sponsored that work at all. At the moment, I cannot sustain this work economically any more, and will temporarily and indefinitely stop working on this project. If any company has interests in the future of the project, I’d welcome an offer to sponsor my work here; if so, please let me know.

Have a lovely day! Alex

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
44 points

Everything needs to be slapped with the AGPL. Fuck corporate America

permalink
report
reply
6 points

AGPL on documentation? What would that do?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Creative Commons-BY-NC would be better.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Alright we should use that then

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

AGPL doesn’t help. AGPL authors are explicitly pro-corporate use

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

I thought AGPL was the more restrictive version of GPL? Which license should we use so that corporates need to pay?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

AGPL is the most restrictive OSI approved license (of the commonly used ones), but it is still a free (libre) open source license. My understanding is just that the AGPL believes in the end-users rights to access to the open source needs to be maintained and therefore places some burden to make the source available if it it’s being run on a server.

In general, companies run away from anything AGPL, however, some companies will get creative with it and make their source available but in a way that is useless without the backend. And even if they don’t maliciously comply with the license, they can still charge for their services.

As far as documentation goes, you could license documentation under AGPL, and people could still charge for it. It would just need to be kept available for end-users which i don’t think is really a barrier to use for documentation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

It is my understanding that the only difference applies to hosted software. For example, Lemmy is AGPL. If it were GPL, then a company could take the source code, modify it and host their own version without open sourcing their modifications. AGPL extends to freedoms of GPL to users of hosted software as well.

A real example of this would be truth social which is modified Mastodon and as AGPL those modifications are required to be open source as well.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Unfortunately it is still not enough. There have been many instances of people using these licenses and still corporations using their software without giving back, and developers being upset about it.

And unfortunately there are no popular licenses that limit that. I’ve seen a few here and there, but doesn’t seem to be a standard.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Linux

!linux@lemmy.ml

Create post

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word “Linux” in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

  • Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
  • No misinformation
  • No NSFW content
  • No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

Community stats

  • 9.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.1K

    Posts

  • 170K

    Comments