background preloader

Open Source Licensing

Facebook Twitter

Open edX: Why we’re relicensing XBlock API under Apache. We have seen extensive adoption around the world: Open edX sites have been created by universities, national consortiums, nonprofits, and professional education firms.

Open edX: Why we’re relicensing XBlock API under Apache

We’ve had contributions of significant features from members and outside organizations, such as improved hinting from Stanford, single-sign-on from Google, and annotations from Harvard. And, we have a growing ecosystem of third-party service providers, such as OpenCraft, Extension Engine, Jazkarta, and EdCast, Inc. The evolution of Open edX Our code was originally open-sourced under the AGPL license. This license is widely used by organizations committed to the ideal of open source. Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software. By Richard Stallman When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes.

Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software

This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.” These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized. Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all students to use the free GNU/Linux operating system. The free software movement has campaigned for computer users' freedom since 1983. Not all of the users and developers of free software agreed with the goals of the free software movement. Mattermost releases under MIT license, AGPL does not apply - Announcements - Forum. Mattermost releases95 (the standard compiled versions of source code released by the core team) will be available under an MIT license, rather than the Apache-AGPL license, starting with v1.0.

Mattermost releases under MIT license, AGPL does not apply - Announcements - Forum

The change to MIT was requested by the GitLab community to make it easy to deploy Mattermost in organizations who prefer MIT. While we could have also offered a commercial license or Apache, MIT was specifically requested. We anticipate over 99% of users will use the compiled releases, and the MIT license makes this straight forward. See MIT-COMPILED-LICENSE file in Mattermost releases95 for details.

The purpose of AGPL in the Mattermost source code is to require modifications to the core product be shared with the community, rather than being kept proprietary. Big thanks to the GitLab community for feedback on this change. Peer Production Licence : le chaînon manquant entre la Culture libre et l’Economie Sociale et Solidaire. Fairlyshare on Strikingly. Licensing. The basic idea behind ]project-open[ is to create an open-source ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) system.


So why don't we release all of our code under an open-source license such as the GPL ? It's a difficult one. We are believers in open-source who are convinced that open-source economics will, on the long term change and finally dominate the entire software industry. Pourquoi est-ce que les licences « pas d'usage commercial » sont une mauvaise idée ? Défense et illustration de la clause non-commerciale. Depuis le mois d’avril 2012, la fondation Creative Commons International a annoncé qu’une nouvelle version de ses licences (la 4.0) allait être publiée et un appel à commentaires a été lancé pour inviter la communauté à participer à la réflexion.

Défense et illustration de la clause non-commerciale

Des modifications importantes sont envisagées, comme le fait de globaliser les licences pour ne plus avoir à les adapter pays par pays, en fonction des législations nationales. Mais c’est une autre question qui s’est imposée dans les discussions : celle de la conservation ou non de la clause Non Commercial – Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale (NC).

Quentin Metsys. Le Prêteur et sa femme. Domaine public. Il s’agit à vrai dire d’un vieux débat qui divise le monde du libre depuis des années. Si l’on en croît le graphique ci-dessous, publié par Creative Commons dans la brochure The Power of Open, l’option NC est retenue par une majorité d’utilisateurs : 60% sur les quelques 450 millions d’oeuvres placées sous licence Creative Commons. Grey Slate 2. [ox-en] Copyfarleft: Response to Stefan Meretz. From: Dmytri Kleiner <dk>Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:55:26 +0100 Thank you to Stefan Meretz for taking the time to engage at length with my essay, "Copyfarleft, Copyjustright and the Iron Law of Copyright Earnings.

[ox-en] Copyfarleft: Response to Stefan Meretz

" The main argument advanced in the essay is that artists can not earn a living from exclusivity of "intellectual property" and that that neither copyleft licenses like the GPL, nor "copyjustright" frameworks such as the creative commons, can help. Between Copyleft and Copyfarleft: Advance reciprocity for the commons. Miguel Said Vieira & Primavera De Filippi Introduction Licensing debates abound in the “free culture” academic discussion (see, i.a., Downes, 2009; Hill, 2005; Lemos, 2010; Netpop Research, 2009; UNESCO OER Community, 2011), but we believe much of it suffers from one of two problems.

Between Copyleft and Copyfarleft: Advance reciprocity for the commons

First, restricting themselves to a purely technical, legalistic approach; this kind of approach is important and necessary for improving licenses, but it is not sufficient to deal with the social impacts and ramifications of such licenses. Second, adopting a dualistic and overly antagonistic approach, particularly with regard to the debate on commercial usages. This debate touches important aspects of the licensing discussions, but it frequently stalemates (due to its polarized character) before it is possible to make significant advances in deepening our knowledge about these issues, and coordinating efforts for improving the knowledge commons. From copyleft to copyfarleft A. Peer Production License. The peer production license is an example of the Copyfarleft type of license, in which only other commoners, cooperatives and nonprofits can share and re-use the material, but not commercial entities intent on making profit through the commons without explicit reciprocity This version of the Peer Production License: a model for Copyfarleft was copied from the text "The Telekommunist Manifesto".

Peer Production License