ReactOS license
Moderator: Moderator Team
ReactOS license
Hi, ReactOS developers!
I have a question. If the project is being developed for the community money, why his license is not absolutely free as BSD? I think if the developer takes community money, it should return a code which will be completely free. Code should be in the public domain.
I have a question. If the project is being developed for the community money, why his license is not absolutely free as BSD? I think if the developer takes community money, it should return a code which will be completely free. Code should be in the public domain.
Re: ReactOS license
So, currently it is free as in GPLv2. You want free as in BSD, but then you want it to be free as in public domain. What is free enough? Some say that BSD is not free in a good way because someone can then apply your work in their code and close the source, which actually decreases the freedom.
Re: ReactOS license
GPL2 is free for users, but not free for other developers. In addition, the code is licensed under the GPL exclusively controlled by the authors of the code.
Such license as the Apache, BSD or public domain are given more freedom to reuse code or parts of the code, for example, some classes or functions.
Such license as the Apache, BSD or public domain are given more freedom to reuse code or parts of the code, for example, some classes or functions.
Re: ReactOS license
Of course the GPL code is free for other developers. That's why it's so often used in open source projects, because you can still share the code with anyone interested. ReactOS itself uses 3rd-party libraries licensed under GPLv2. You can even take the whole ReactOS codebase and create a fork, why that doesn't seem free enough?
Re: ReactOS license
This is not so. License GPL as shackles for developers, it has many limitations that say: you can not do this, and you can not do that. Also, it is called a viral license .
Re: ReactOS license
Could you be more specific as to what part of my answer is not so?DmP wrote:This is not so
Re: ReactOS license
Do you have any statistics on the use of the license GPL in large open source projects? Please, share it.Black_Fox wrote:That's why it's so often used in open source projects ...
I'm not talking about creating forks. But about reuse parts of the code in any possible projects, including comercial. GPL has many restricts the use of the code.Black_Fox wrote:You can even take the whole ReactOS codebase and create a fork, why that doesn't seem free enough?
But it is not necessary to start a holy war about the GPL. Initially, the question was why the people who invest in the project do not get the right to choose a license for final product?
Re: ReactOS license
https://www.blackducksoftware.com/resou ... e-licenses - it says the most used are GPLv2 (26 %), MIT (19 %), Apache 2.0 (16 %), GPLv3 (11 %), BSD 2.0 (7 %). That's over 75 % of all projects tracked by the website.
More importantly, licence of a multi-million lines of code software is not something you can change overnight just because you think another licence is better. Even if it really 100% is, which isn't a case here.
More importantly, licence of a multi-million lines of code software is not something you can change overnight just because you think another licence is better. Even if it really 100% is, which isn't a case here.
-
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 6:50 am
Re: ReactOS license
I guess people who give money to the project actually know that it is licensed under the GPL, so I see no real problem here.
Re: ReactOS license
Ok, MIT + Apache + BSD ~ 42% and more projects under really free licenses. But it still does not show the situation on large projects.Black_Fox wrote:https://www.blackducksoftware.com/resou ... e-licenses - it says the most used are GPLv2 (26 %), MIT (19 %), Apache 2.0 (16 %), GPLv3 (11 %), BSD 2.0 (7 %). That's over 75 % of all projects tracked by the website.
Such big organizations like Google, Apache, Mozilla, FreeBSD publish their own projects under a permissive free licenses.
Yes, of course I understand this is a difficult question. But this is possible. ReactOS can takes aim to make the project more liberal.Black_Fox wrote:More importantly, licence of a multi-million lines of code software is not something you can change overnight just because you think another licence is better. Even if it really 100% is, which isn't a case here.
Some people, and many commercial organizations hate GPL, it is not comfortable in work. From what the project loses people and money.
And I, as an individual, I want to invest in the project, but not in the GPL and the FSF.
Re: ReactOS license
Not all people understand the drama GPLForever Winter wrote:I guess people who give money to the project actually know that it is licensed under the GPL, so I see no real problem here.
Re: ReactOS license
See also "Criticism of the term" there when following the link.DmP wrote:This is not so. License GPL as shackles for developers, it has many limitations that say: you can not do this, and you can not do that. Also, it is called a viral license .
Basically, the GPL is not more viral than any other proprietary licence out there, only it allows more freedom when exercising the rights granted by that licence.
The only licence that could be considered 'more free' (in the sense that about everything is allowed with it), is BSD. But saying GPL is viral makes no sense, unless one considers the majority of all licences viral, since one can never use someone elses' code 'just like that' with most other licences neither.
Re: ReactOS license
Nope. We are not going to move towards anything besides our current license/s.
The ReactOS Community Edition should be seen as a way to donate the project(which explicitly is marked as GPL) to work in the apps the Community chose.
In other words, "the money you paid gives you the right to tell us which apps you want us to work in to make it compatible and other rewards", and of course not any other additional "right" as a re-licensing.
If anyone wants to buy* ReactOS, Basic CoCoMo says it costs:
Estimated Cost
$ 83,774,441
Codebase Size
4,998,453 lines
*Yeah. No. We're not in "sold".
The ReactOS Community Edition should be seen as a way to donate the project(which explicitly is marked as GPL) to work in the apps the Community chose.
In other words, "the money you paid gives you the right to tell us which apps you want us to work in to make it compatible and other rewards", and of course not any other additional "right" as a re-licensing.
If anyone wants to buy* ReactOS, Basic CoCoMo says it costs:
Estimated Cost
$ 83,774,441
Codebase Size
4,998,453 lines
*Yeah. No. We're not in "sold".
Re: ReactOS license
Here is a simple example of the viral nature of GPL.Webunny wrote:See also "Criticism of the term" there when following the link.DmP wrote:Also, it is called a viral license .
Basically, the GPL is not more viral than any other proprietary licence out there, only it allows more freedom when exercising the rights granted by that licence.
The only licence that could be considered 'more free' (in the sense that about everything is allowed with it), is BSD. But saying GPL is viral makes no sense, unless one considers the majority of all licences viral, since one can never use someone elses' code 'just like that' with most other licences neither.
Suppose I found in ReactOS function that I needed, and I include the file with this function in my project. In this case, I did not change its contents.
Other permissive free licenses require simply specify the authors of function and what it is used in the project.
While the GPL and even LGPL forced me relicense all my project with hundreds of files. It's worst.
Re: ReactOS license
Is this official position of the project ReactOS?vicmarcal wrote:Nope. We are not going to move towards anything besides our current license/s.
The ReactOS Community Edition should be seen as a way to donate the project(which explicitly is marked as GPL) to work in the apps the Community chose.
In other words, "the money you paid gives you the right to tell us which apps you want us to work in to make it compatible and other rewards", and of course not any other additional "right" as a re-licensing.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 31 guests