And even then, the non-FOSS `sold` is source-available, which covers 3 of the 4 freedoms and IMO that missing freedom is the least important. The folks who care about free-as-in-freedom won't be affected by this. It's still FOSS for FOSS-systems, while support for non-FOSS systems is non-FOSS. ![]() ![]() Plus, even beyond the "moral should", practically speaking, going non-FOSS this means it gets excluded from GNU/Linux distro packages, which IMO would be a fatal hit for something like this.īut honestly, I'm fine with this move. But I hope we don't see any tedious comments here about how this is a moral outrage because all software should be fr£e.Īll software should be free-as-in-freedom, but not nescessarily free-as-in-£ though I acknowledge that the former without the latter is often problematic.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |