Linux-Turned-FreeBSD Distro Comes Up With A New Software License

[MoonMoon]

It's like people don't realize that there really is basically only Michael writing and editing these articles which will always lead to some odd errors every once-in-a-while.

Oh, I am fully aware of that. But I also am aware of Michael basically saying that for him quantity is more important than quality. It seems that many low quality articles just bring in more money than fewer high quality articles. May be also influenced by the large amount of trolls in the forum (caused by no moderation at all), which a) chase away knowledgeable people interested in high quality discussions, and b) of course love those clickbait articles.

@system25: Michael tries to sell a product here. As a potential customer I can give him feedback why I will not buy his product in the current state, all without having to produce the same thing first.

[System25]

@system25: Michael tries to sell a product here. As a potential customer I can give him feedback why I will not buy his product in the current state, all without having to produce the same thing first.

While I would somewhat agree quality of articles can be improved, I can admit Phoronix still seems to be one of best news aggregators around opensource these days, so feel free to buy competing products, etc... if you can find 'em. It looks like Phoronix enjoys by some kind of "monopoly" .

[Muhammadreza Haghiri]

First, I apologize for trolling, and calling this website hate-speeche-er (or -ist?) and also I delete that tweet.
Second, We decided to delete and disband that license, because it's really pointless, and we'll consider another
well-known license.

Regards.

[somini]

First, I apologize for trolling, and calling this website hate-speeche-er (or -ist?) and also I delete that tweet.
Second, We decided to delete and disband that license, because it's really pointless, and we'll consider another
well-known license.

Regards.

[Luke_Wolf]

So, We never again send message to this rude website. Usage of rude terms, and hate-speech, and behaving a group like clowns. TYPICAL WESTERN BEHAVIOR.

I'm sorry but who is the one acting with prejudice here.... that's right it's you. Unlike you nobody else in this thread even brought up where it came from. Meanwhile you are showing prejudice against the west by the very statement "Typical Western Behavior".

Meanwhile the bulk of the criticism leveled against you is valid:
This License is objectively bad and not a license. Nowhere in it does it state that anyone may actually use the software

Further just what does this

A PROGRAM CAN BE WRITTEN OR PRODUCED UNDER THIS LICENSE, BUT FOR REDISTRIBUTIONS, ONLY
CHANGED/MODIFIED PARTS WILL BE PUBLISHED UNDER THIS LICENSE.

Actually even mean? I mean as I understand this, what it's saying is I can use this license when I write a program, but when someone redistributes it the license on the pre-existing code that they are distributing becomes void and that the redistributer's changes MUST be licensed under this license. Which I assume is not what you intended.

Further it's quite evident based upon the language used that no one involved in the creation of this "license" is actually a lawyer. If you're not a lawyer you really, really shouldn't be writing your own license. What I would suggest is that you figure out what you actually want and choose one of the following licenses:

• Essentially Public Domain
  • BSD 2-Clause
  • MIT
  • ISC
• Permissive + Patent Grant
  • Apache 2.0
• CopyLeft: only effects your project
  • MPL
• CopyLeft non-derivative works version:
  • LGPL v2.1
  • CDDL (note patent grant and GPL incompatibility)
• Copyleft:
  • GPL 2.0
  • GPL v3 (Stops Tivoization)
• Purist Copyleft
  • AGPL

Further the reason you're being bashed by most people here has everything to do with the fact that you're new, you've not proven yourself, and you're doing silly things like this whole license thing, when you should just be adopting a pre-existing license. There's really no reason to create a new OSS license at this point anyway even if you had a lawyer to write it for you because any legal variation is going to be already covered by current pre-existing licenses between the above code licenses and Creative Commons for anything non-code.

Edit: oh looks like I've been ninja'ed by them stopping the license thing while I was writing this

[r1348]

First, I apologize for trolling, and calling this website hate-speeche-er (or -ist?) and also I delete that tweet.
Second, We decided to delete and disband that license, because it's really pointless, and we'll consider another
well-known license.

Regards.

Son, I am disappoint.

[prodigy_]

The "license" itself is ridiculous in both premise and wording but it still illustrates what's wrong with permissive licenses. On the other hand you can't just take GPL code, make minimal changes and re-release it under an absurd or deliberately incompatible license.

[asavah]

IMO you guys are paying too much attention to some absolutely irrelevant project,
I think that most of us wouldn't even know about it without Michael's article.

What can I say?
Just another useless project, with severe NIH syndrome, which no one except its developers would use (would they?).
If they can't even make up a proper, sane license what do you guys expect to see in their "code" built with their state of the art "compilreer"?

This project reminds me of BolgenOS - attempt to rebrand Ubuntu and promote it as his own OS made by some russian kid a few years ago.

[somini]

This project reminds me of BolgenOS - attempt to rebrand Ubuntu and promote it as his own OS made by some russian kid a few years ago.

It's exactly like that. Why can't we have a little fun?

[energyman]

Another example of a very low quality article on Phoronix and a perfect example why I don't see why I should disable my Adblocker or even become a premium subscriber.

so you are nothing but a cost creating parasite.

The earlier you get lost, the better.