This debate around licensing, politics and making our FOSS efforts sustainable need to happen. It looks like for now to some people the path forward is defensive licensing? I wish at least we'd first attempt to have more strong copyleft use...

It's a bit of a sour article but it rings so true... We let Open Source take the mantle in companies which are mostly free loaders and churn closed products, or even worse have them closed and DRM protected. There's really quite some work to still realize the Free Software goals.

Nice idea and well executed I'd say. If you got doubts about something being FOSS, stopping there and checking is in order.

This is one of the best references I know on the topic. It's not that long, to the point and all developers should know it.

OK, that's a funny experiment. I don't think many people post such requests anymore.

It shouldn't be, but it is a big deal. Having such training corpus openly available is one of the big missing pieces to build models.

It's about time... I wish they would have gone for the AGPL + proprietary double license scheme instead of their odd licenses the last time.

I'm not sure the "bubble" comparison properly applies. Still there are indeed signs of the Open Source movement getting in troubles. It'll be all the more important to stick to the Free Software values.

It's a piece which really resonates with me. I've been thinking and saying for a while that focusing mostly on the technical (licensing and dev) aspects of Open Source was a mistake. This completely overlooked the political side of the Free Software equation. This is why the industry is as it is now. We need stronger commons and indeed the AGPL is best for that.

Indeed, time to leave Redis behind in favor of Redict. It's not like one can expect new things to come out to such a project.

Good exploration on how the total cost of ownership is spread depending on how is licensed the software you use and where you get your support from. I think there's one point a bit too glanced over in the analysis of the cost for the proprietary SaaS case: what's the cost of fixing a bug that affect your team? You might be a tiny fish in a large pond, good luck getting attention from support in this case.

This is an interesting move, we'll see if this certification gets any traction.

A bit of an older article I'm bumping into again. It lays out fairly well the current limits and issues with Free Software as it is defined today. I'm unconvinced it can be solved via licenses but the debate needs to happen... I feel that somehow it's too much ignored.

Interesting move in the Matrix space. It's nice to see them go for a dual license business model involving AGPLv3. I'm a bit more concerned about the CLA though. Let's hope they setup something equivalent to the KDE-FreeQt Foundatio going through the Matrix Foundation. Otherwise, AFAICT, there's no safeguard against some nefarious relicensing years down the line.

Interesting line of argument regarding Free Software licenses. I wonder what the judges will conclude in the end... this could have important consequences.

Unsurprisingly after people massively converged to two main closed source engines for their games, they start to be massively screwed over. Maybe it's time for them to finally turn to Free Software alternatives?

Definitely this! There are awesome Free Software alternatives to Zoom. We need to get more people to use them

Looks like a handy tool for licenses compatibility checking.

Good explanations around the (deserved) complaints against Zoom and their not that new user license.

Happy birthday the KDE Free Qt Foundation! It's really nice to see it survived the test of time. It is for sure an essential tool of the KDE ecosystem. I wish there would be more such foundations around.