Follow

Why is software that is programmed with taxpayers’ money not released as Free Software? We want legislation requiring that publicly financed software developed for public sector must be made publicly available under a Free and Open Source Software licence. youtube.com/watch?v=iuVUzg6x2y

@fsfe Can we limit that to “share alike” licenses like GPL/AGPL so that it cannot be enclosed afterwards?

@band
MIT, Apache and BSD would be inadequate because modified/improved software derived from free software could be proprietary and would therefore no longer benefit the community and would also eliminate the other benefits.
GPL, AGPL or similar licences should be as @aral has already said

@fsfe

@Shamar
I don't know this lincence yet, but if it is for free software and with copyleft, then yes
@band @aral @fsfe @aral

@fsfe why are you still using Google to share your own videos with CC license instead of sharing it via PeerTube?

@fsfe The use of open formats should be required as well. I have had several interactions with the government of my country in the past where data was shared with me through proprietary formats or services were only usable through a certain proprietary browser.

@fsfe Because Public Money is not 'Free money' software programmed by a Charity is technically free because it was financed by donations not Taxes. Tax payers do not like seeing things done with their money then given away.

@dick_turpin Is releasing an application under a Free Software licence "giving away" the software? It's not like it is lost afterwards. That's the mindset we would like to change in the public sector and society

@fsfe That's not what you said: "𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘢𝘹𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴’ 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘍𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘦?" If you mean released under the GPL that's a whole different ball game. Using the term "Free" in the big bad world is devious at best and misleading at worst because most if not all individuals and institutions outside of the FOSS community equate "Free" with "Giving away"

That's always been The Community's problem, we know what we mean but outsiders don't.

@dick_turpin
What terminology would you suggest instead to avoid misunderstandings?

@fsfe Like I said: "Released under the GPL" I don't beleive there's a "Public Domain" for software?

@dick_turpin GPL is only one acknowledged Free Software licence of many, naming all of them would be insane. That's why we write "Free and Open Source Software licence" (note the capitalisation), which refers to the approved licences of both OSI and FSF. If you visit publiccode.eu, you'll also notice a definition and links to further resources about Free Software, eliminating all ambiguity.

If you have further ideas, please let us know.

@fsfe LOL
You trying to teach me how to suck eggs? My friend I've been supporting FOSS and the FSFE for the last 20 years now. I'm also very active in the Creative Commons community. But lets not get into a "How high?" competition. You didn't say FOSS in the original quote you said "Free" you may well have left off Open Source Software but that was my point. Software is not free there is always a cost element to it, be it time, expertise or fiat.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!