openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Kovacs <>
Subject Copyleft vs Permissive
Date Wed, 11 Jan 2017 21:49:08 GMT
On 11.01.2017 11:00, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote:
> Am 11.01.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>> For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was
>> writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should
>> have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does
>> not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to
>> anything that uses their licenses.
> The difference between the Apache Licence and the licences, which are
> promoted by the FSF, is the so called "Copyleft". The Apache licence has
> no copyleft.
> But copyleft gives the programmer more and not less control, because
> nobody can make a proprietary (non free) product of the code without the
> permission of the copyright holder (programmer).
I do not think copyleft gives you more control. You omit your copy 
rights in favour of copy left.
Multi Licens policies are only possible if your developer team agrees on 
this model right from the start.
If you try to build one afterwards, I would expect at least 
difficulties, or even risks if your documentation on contributors is to 
> That is why some supporters of copyleftless licence say, that these
> licences are more free than licence containing a copyleft.
> That is a question, whether you are the user or the creator of the code.
> For an enduser of the code copyleft brings potentially more freedom.
Endusers do not care about license policy in general. See the closed 
source drivers in the Kernel. There was somewhat pressure to resolve it, 
but a lot of pressure not to sentence it.
Also you can see in our Community that the Apache License is not a major 
topic to them. Functionality is the major point. I think it is even less 
important for users which license a software has then data security.
> If you are a developer, using code under a copyleftless licence is much
> easier. But if you are the programmer of the used code, you have more
> control, what people do with your product.
I think the license model is much tied to your business modell. If you 
are able to build services around code, the protection of the copy left, 
makes you more secure on the market. Since no one can break out.
If your model works directly with the Product, the flexibility of the 
Permissive license can be the stronger choice.
I do not believe that a lot of people understand this. There is this 
Idea floating around copy left == communism, which I think is not true. 
It depends on the organisation of the community.
> Kind regards
> Michael
Thanks michael for your explanations. Was really interesting, even if I 
have another point of view :-D

All the best

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message