Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
en:philosophy:community_software [2024/07/03 14:54] throgh [Community-oriented software] |
en:philosophy:community_software [2025/04/21 04:00] (current) throgh [Where are the issues with companies and / or corporations?] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| Per definition any company and / or corporation has no common understanding of ethics and moral, also no understanding to protect the privacy and security for the greater good of all beings. Acting on behalf of laws does not automatically include acting per definition good or morally intact following ethical standards. So Hyperbola concluded as project that the inclusion of projects with a corporate background is not following our definition and understanding of what free, libre software should grant. | Per definition any company and / or corporation has no common understanding of ethics and moral, also no understanding to protect the privacy and security for the greater good of all beings. Acting on behalf of laws does not automatically include acting per definition good or morally intact following ethical standards. So Hyperbola concluded as project that the inclusion of projects with a corporate background is not following our definition and understanding of what free, libre software should grant. | ||
| - | Especially trademarks in usage can lead in our perspective to further issues, when it comes to rights granted for free, libre and permissive licensed software. Yes, it is clearly to be seen also that licenses on the one hand and trademarks on the other hand are also to be separated. Nevertheless companies and / or corporations have proven not to be oriented towards some kind of fair usage or friendly tolerance. In fact it is more clear to be seen that free, libre software is in a dangerous position when only adapting definitions instead of redefinition own stances against trendings to use too harsh and strict trademarks. Examples are here [[en: | + | Especially trademarks in usage can lead in our perspective to further issues, when it comes to rights granted for free, libre and permissive licensed software. Yes, it is clearly to be seen also that licenses on the one hand and trademarks on the other hand are also to be separated. Nevertheless companies and / or corporations have proven not to be oriented towards some kind of fair usage or friendly tolerance. In fact it is more clear to be seen that free, libre software is in a dangerous position when only adapting definitions instead of redefinition own stances against trendings to use too harsh and strict trademarks. Examples are here [[en: |
| In fact: Companies and / or corporations only pretend to support as they are only interested to have most flexible support for their products and productions and people being active in their so-called projects are most time cheap workforces. | In fact: Companies and / or corporations only pretend to support as they are only interested to have most flexible support for their products and productions and people being active in their so-called projects are most time cheap workforces. | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| ===== But the FSF is listing some of your excluded and removed packages as free? ===== | ===== But the FSF is listing some of your excluded and removed packages as free? ===== | ||
| - | Yes, the FSF (Free Software Foundation) has their [[https:// | + | Yes, the FSF (Free Software Foundation) has their [[https:// |
| ===== But you can rebrand for example programming-languages or other software? ===== | ===== But you can rebrand for example programming-languages or other software? ===== | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| Yes, the FSF is listing reasonings for distribution: | Yes, the FSF is listing reasonings for distribution: | ||
| - | < | + | < |
| Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your | Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your | ||
| freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. | freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
| And the quote from the FSF is going also further: | And the quote from the FSF is going also further: | ||
| - | < | + | < |
| Rules that “if you make your version available in this way, you must make it available in that way also” | Rules that “if you make your version available in this way, you must make it available in that way also” | ||
| can be acceptable too, on the same condition. An example of such an acceptable rule is | can be acceptable too, on the same condition. An example of such an acceptable rule is | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
| </ | </ | ||
| - | Because this means in fact that Hyperbola would need to do several forks from upstream and that amount of work is again to underline impossible for small system-projects. In fact the FSF has written those principles with good intention, but also with ignoring the amount of rising complexity. Exactly that complexity Hyperbola rejects and is not oriented on. What " | + | Because this means in fact that Hyperbola would need to do several forks from upstream and that amount of work is again to underline impossible for small system-projects. In fact the FSF has written those principles with good intention, but also with ignoring the amount of rising complexity. Exactly that complexity Hyperbola rejects and is not oriented on. What " |
| ===== But what if a corporation makes a free program, under a free software license for selling free software, would you recognize this as non-free? ===== | ===== But what if a corporation makes a free program, under a free software license for selling free software, would you recognize this as non-free? ===== | ||