Make proprietary relicensing the term of the week.

This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2023-02-09 12:29:32 -08:00
parent 42d42becc6
commit f22ae3e4f4
2 changed files with 28 additions and 2 deletions

View file

@ -51,6 +51,20 @@ A very common utility for Linux-based systems. Bash was originally released unde
<h3 id="linux-kernel">Linux kernel</h3>
<p>A kernel is the heart of an operating system, which all computerized devices, like smart TVs, require in order to function. The Linux kernel is one of the most popular operating system kernels.</p>
<h3 id="proprietary-relicensing">proprietary relicensing</h3>
<p><em>Proprietary relicensing</em> is a toxic business model whereby a company
distributes software under a <a href="/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#copyleft"><em>copyleft</em> licenses</a>, but refuses to
agree to the copyleft license themselves (by collecting rights to issue
proprietary,
non-<a href="/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#FOSS">FOSS</a> licenses
for the software separately). While the software is technically
available as FOSS, users must worry since the rights-holder usually
captiously (and often incorrectly) interprets the copyleft license and
demands licensing fees for acts that copyleft actually permits. Users
must chose whether to fight the proprietary relicensor in Court, buy a
proprietary license, or cease use of the software. This behavior is
widely consider by FOSS activists as an inappropriate use of copyleft
licensing.</p>
<h3 id="right-to-repair">right-to-repair software</h3>
<p>The ability to repair the software on your device in the same way you can repair the physical aspects of your tools. Software Freedom Conservancy asserts that this right is overlooked and needs additional legal protections (as the <acronym title="Federal Trade Commission">FTC</acronym> has agreed with) to protect consumers. Software Freedom Conservancy focuses specifically on the right to software repair; other great organizations like the <a href="https://www.repair.org/">Repair Association</a> focus on the right to hardware repair. The two rights go hand-in-hand in our modern world where nearly all electronic devices also have small computers inside them.</p>

View file

@ -83,8 +83,20 @@ strategies that defend FOSS (such as copyleft). <a href="/about" class="orange">
<div class="w-30-ns mh2">
<div class="ph3 pv2 ba b--gray">
<h3 class="ttu">Term of the week</h3>
<h4 id="foss-commons">FOSS commons</h4>
<p>The Digital Library of the Commons defines “commons” as “a general term for shared resources in which each stakeholder has an equal interest”. The FOSS commons refers to a commons for free and open source software (FOSS) (See also <a href="https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#software-freedom">software freedom</a>).</p>
<h4 id="foss-commons">proprietary relicensing</h4>
<p><em>Proprietary relicensing</em> is a toxic business model whereby a company
distributes software under a <a href="/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#copyleft"><em>copyleft</em> licenses</a>, but refuses to
agree to the copyleft license themselves (by collecting rights to issue
proprietary,
non-<a href="/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html#FOSS">FOSS</a> licenses
for the software separately). While the software is technically
available as FOSS, users must worry since the rights-holder usually
captiously (and often incorrectly) interprets the copyleft license and
demands licensing fees for acts that copyleft actually permits. Users
must chose whether to fight the proprietary relicensor in Court, buy a
proprietary license, or cease use of the software. This behavior is
widely consider by FOSS activists as an inappropriate use of copyleft
licensing.</p>
<p><a href="/copyleft-compliance/glossary.html" class="orange ttu">Visit our glossary of terms</a></p>
</div>