`````Cybercrime en Cyber Security Nederland
PRISCILLA F. HARMANUS OVER ONDERZOEK INFORMATIE VEILIGHEID EN VITALE INFRASTRUCTUUR IN DE DIGITALE OVERHEID

Home » Regering » Digitale overheid » Open source en free software » Softwarelicentie is een nieuwe webpagina

Apache vs GPLv3 - Free as in Freedom

Maandag 16 november 2020

Free en open-source software (FOSS) licenties


Black Duck Software's "Open Source License Data" meldt dat de meest populaire licenties GPLv2 (32,65%), Apache 2.0 (12,84%), GPLv3 (11,62%), MIT (11,28%), BSD-licentie 2.0 (6,83%) zijn. Artistiek (6,27%), LGPL 2,1 (6,19%) en LGPL 3,0 (2,62%). Dit zijn de top 20 licenties in de database van Black Duck. 

De GPL is natuurlijk gemaakt door Richard Stallman en het GNU-project en de Free Software Foundation onderschrijven natuurlijk de GPL sterk, aangezien de GPL echt is gebouwd op de vier vrijheden van vrije software. De vier vrijheden zijn de vrijheid om de software te gebruiken zoals jij dat wilt, de vrijheid om wijzigingen aan te brengen, de vrijheid om de broncode met iedereen te delen en de vrijheid om die veranderingen te delen.  The GNU General Public License Protects Software Freedoms. Different licenses like the MIT, BSD and the Apache License permits proprietary versions of the code. Why open the door for someone to use your code to subjugate other people? Why not insist anything with your code in? #bring under domination of control, especially by conquest. It has to respect the freedom of its users.


De GNU General Public License of kortweg de GPL is een copyleftlicentie voor software, bedacht door Richard M. Stallman van GNU, die stelt dat je met de software mag doen wat je wilt, inclusief aanpassen en verkopen, mits je dat recht ook doorgeeft aan anderen (pass those same four essentials freedoms) en de auteur van de software vermeldt.

Apache versus GPLv3 Free Software "FREEDOM OF CHOICE"

Apache veranderde hun licentie naar "versie 2.0", en een van hun doelen was om "compatibel te zijn met andere open source licenties, zoals de GPL". Helaas gelooft de Apache Software Foundation dat Apache-licentieversie 2.0 compatibel is met de GPL-versie 2, terwijl het juridische team van de Free Software Foundation beweert dat Apache-licentieversie 2.0 niet GPL-compatibel is. Sinds die tijd werken de FSF en Apache Software Foundation samen, en het is bekend dat GPL-versie 3 compatibel is met de Apache-licentieversie 2.0 (Apache-medeoprichter Brian Behlendorf is verheugd over de compatibiliteit van de Apache 2.0 / GPLv3-licentie). Deze lange geschiedenis maakt duidelijk dat beide partijen geloven dat GPL-compatibiliteit een belangrijk voordeel is in een FLOSS-licentie.


GPLv2 is not going away.  There's no reason for it to.  So what exactly is the purpose of GPLv3? The GNU General Public License Protects Software Freedoms

If I choose to use RMS tools and take a piece of GPL software, software under RMS's terms and in furtherance of RMS's goals, the only real restriction that the GPL places is that the source code of your derived work must be freely available for everyone. You cannot take a piece of GPL software and derive something from it slap a proprietary closed source license on it and sell it as proprietary software the GPL does not allow for such an immoral action unlike the permissive licenses we discussed earlier. If you don't agree with RMS's occasionally bozoid ideas, don't use his code. There's no gun to your head or anything... You just don't want anyone *else* to use his code, right? Have you read the GNU Public license? It's a legal virus, contamination everything it touches. If you run GNU Bison at all, the entire program you write is magically brought under its terms. I'm not sure if this applies to GNU cc's libraries or not, but it wouldn't surprise me. Most of GNUware was either written by RMS himself or by other people on their own time. This is no more "paid for by the public" than NetHack. However, the last time the GPL was discussed, the point came up that the GPL was specifically written to have the virus-like effect. This is indeed evil, since it coerces *! into publishing *! software under RMS's terms, and in furtherance of RMS's goals, if I choose to use RMS's tools. Why not insist anything with your code in? #bring under domination or control, especially by conquest. It has to respect the freedom of its users. Now it's time. Also GNU.org/philosophy, has lots of articles about various political and philosophical and ethical issues.

The GNU General Public License (GPL) protects software freedoms. And the author's name of that software license is Richard Stallman. Blender is licensed under the terms of GPL. As it works fantastic for Blender, freedom is not their goal. Their goal is money.

The GNU General Public License (GPL) protects software freedoms. And the author's name of that software license is Richard Stallman. Blender is licensed under the terms of GPL. As GNU GPL works fantastic for Blender, freedom is not their goal. Their goal is money.


YouTube video "Free and Open Source Licenses" published on 27 januari 2020: DistroTube briefly describes four popular "free" licenses: the MIT license, BSD license, Apache license and GPL.  He discusses the difference between the "permissive" licenses and the "copyleft" licenses and why he thinks the permissive licenses betray the spirit of the free software movement and the open source movement.

If you are really serious about free and open source software then you put it out there in the public you are granting people these freedoms those freedoms have to be protected yes you have to create a more restrictive license sometimes but you're you're creating a more restrictive license to protect people from losing their freedoms. 

Unlike permissive licenses the GPL is very restrictive why because it restricts a derivative work from being licensed under another license your derivative work has to be also licensed under the GPL you must pass on the same freedoms that you received from that gpl-licensed software you must pass it on to the next person what scares a lot of software developers about the GPL is this viral nature of the GPL that it just spreads everywhere for example if you included a library libraries are smaller programs that are often the building blocks for you know much bigger pieces of software but say you include this software library in your project this library is licensed under the GPL your virtual derived work that includes that library as part of a much bigger work now it has to be cheap build that scares a lot of software developers so you do have a lot of free and open source software developers out there that avoid the GPL same licensing as the original source this means if I take a piece of software that is licensed under the GPL and I create a derivative work my derivative work must also be licensed under the GPL it must abide by the terms of the GPL it also means that developers cannot make claims as far as patent or copyright on the original work the GPL of course is created by Richard Stallman and the GNU-project and the Free Software Foundation of course heavily endorses the GPL as such the GPL really is built upon the four freedoms of free software the four freedoms are the freedom to use the software in any way you choose the freedom to make modifications the freedom to share the source code with anyone and the freedom to share those changes I think one of the things that prevents more people from adopting the GPL is I think some people misunderstand the idea behind copy lifts versus those permissive license like the BSD MIT and Apache licenses I think some people assume that the GPL if you license something other under the GPL that can't be used for commercial purposes that you can't make money with GPL software and that's simply not the case making money is not antithetical to free software or the free software movement or the GPL.



On 13 October 2000, Sun Microsystems released the StarOffice office suite as free software under the GNU Lesser General Public License. The free software version was renamed OpenOffice.org, and coexisted with StarOffice.

Weak pushover licenses lack licenses different licenses sometimes called MIT, BSD and Apache.


De meest populaire FLOSS-licentie is de GNU General Public License (GPL)

Andere alternatieve termen voor FLOSS, naast een van beide termen, zijn onder meer 'libre software' (waarbij libre zowel vrij als vrijheid betekent/free as in freedom), 'livre software' (hetzelfde), free / libre en open-source software (FLOSS), open source / free software (OS/FS), free/open source software (FOSS of F/OSS), open-source software (inderdaad, 'open-source' wordt vaak gebruikt als een algemeen bijvoeglijk naamwoord), 'freed software' en zelfs "public service software" (aangezien deze softwareprojecten vaak zijn ontworpen om het grote publiek te dienen). Ik raad de term "FLOSS" aan, omdat het gemakkelijk te zeggen is en direct het probleem aanpakt dat "free" vaak verkeerd wordt opgevat als "gratis/geen kosten". Er zijn andere manieren om FLOSS uit te breiden, waaronder Free-Libre en Open Source Software en Free/Libre/Open Source Software.


U kunt een meer gedetailleerde uitleg van de termen "open source software" en "Vrije Software/Free Software", evenals gerelateerde informatie, vinden in de bijlage en een lijst met Open Source Software/Free Software (OSS/FS of FLOSS) referenties op https://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_refs.html. Merk op dat degenen die de term 'open source software' gebruiken, de neiging hebben om de technische voordelen van dergelijke software te benadrukken (zoals betere betrouwbaarheid en veiligheid), terwijl degenen die de term 'vrije software' gebruiken (free software) de neiging hebben om de vrijheid van controle door een ander te benadrukken en / of ethische problemen. Het tegenovergestelde van FLOSS is "gesloten/closed" of "propriëtaire" software. De meest populaire FLOSS-licentie is de GNU General Public License (GPL).


Open source

Open content

Free software

Free culture

Free content

Software libre

Libre content







Onderstaande tekst (afgeleid van een videotranscript) is vertaald vanuit het Engels(origineel) naar het Nederlands door Priscilla Harmanus. De onderstaande tekst is een transcript afgeleid uit video's die pleiten voor vrije software, open source, digitale rechten, digitale privacy en de vooruitgang van GNU / Linux.


Vandaag wil ik het met jullie hebben over "free en open-source" software licenties. Er zijn verschillende "free en open-source" licenties, maar niet alle "free en open-source" licenties zijn gelijk. Er zijn echt twee verschillende soorten licenties die er zijn. Er zijn copyleft-licenties zoals de GPL die enkele beperkingen heeft voor wat u met de software kunt doen, voor zover u kunt doen met de afgeleide werken van die software (derivative work). En dan zijn er "permissive licenses". Dat zijn zaken zoals de MIT-license, de BSD-license en de Apache-license. En gaan we het hebben over enkele van de meer populaire "free en open-source" licenties die er zijn. 


In November 1998, the Qt toolkit was licensed under the free/open source Q Public License (QPL) but debate continued about compatibility with the GNU General Public License (GPL). In September 2000, Trolltech made the Unix version of the Qt libraries available under the GPL, in addition to the QPL, which has eliminated the concerns of the Free Software Foundation. KDE has since been split into KDE Plasma Workspaces, a desktop environment, and KDE Software Compilation, a much broader set of software that includes the desktop environment.


👉 Bron



👉 Gerelateerd


  • 📁 Licenses  |  Android Open Source Project
  • 📁 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/plain/COPYING
  • 📁 https://opensource.org/licenses
  • 📁 https://www.getgnulinux.org/archive/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf
  • 📁 https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/
  • 📁 Why GPL violations are bad - Gary explains - Android Authority - 6 FEB 2018
  • 📁 Tech Insider - Open Source Software
  • 📁 Licenses - Definition of Free Cultural Works
  • 📁 When companies use the GPL against each other, our community loses - Conservancy Blog - Software Freedom Conservancy - 2 OKT 2019
  • 📁 First U.S. GPL lawsuit filled | LinuxDevices - 20 SEP 2007
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_software_license
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_and_free_software#Patent_retaliation
  • https://dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-software_license
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_under_the_GNU_AGPL
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_and_open-source_software_licenses
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
  • http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/respects-your-freedom
  • https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.html
  • https://www.gnu.org/award/2001/2001.html
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_van_Rossum
  • https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html.en
  • https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/netscape-npl.en.html
  • https://shop.fsf.org/books-docs/free-software-free-society-selected-essays-richard-m-stallman-3rd-edition
  • https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.en.html
  • https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.en.html
  • https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html.en
  • https://www.gnu.org/licenses/identify-licenses-clearly.html
  • https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
  • https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.en.html
  • https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/netscape-npl-old.html
  • https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/netscape-npl.en.html
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_use_of_copyleft_works
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FixMyStreet
  • https://www.blendernation.com/2014/12/31/new-free-software-foundation-video-made-with-blender/
  • https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/user-liberation-watch-and-share-our-new-video
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20040415012417/http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl
  • https://tm.joomla.org/gnu-general-public-license-v2.html
  • https://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/
  • https://www.jwz.org/doc/emacs-timeline.html
  • https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.mysociety.FixMyStreet/
  • https://twobits.net/pub/Kelty-TwoBits.pdf
  • https://wiki.owasp.org/index.php/Defense_in_depth
  • http://nos.nl/video/270276-persconferentie-donner-over-diginotar.html
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_software_license#Pushover_license
  • https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PythonOld
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_Software_Foundation_License
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FSF_Free_Software_Awards
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FSF_Free_Software_Awards#/media/File:IMG_5010_-_Flickr_-_Jason_"Textfiles"_Scott.jpg


For More Information:


The idea of cooperation among equals that our community rests on, and says that working on a free program means contributing to a proprietary software product.



👉 What links here



👉  Zie ook


GPL resources "Law enforcement, GPL violations, software patents"


Home » Regering » Digitale overheid » Open source en free software » Softwarelicentie is een nieuwe webpagina

 

 

 

 

 
Map
Info