Many FSF Priority Projects Still Not Progressing

[randomizer]

Maximal opensource licence.
---------------------------

This program, plugin, or function is licenced under the Maximal Opensource Licence.
That means that it`s source should always stay open source. And any changes must be available with
the branches. And its derivatives can never in anyway be released as closed source.

Authorship can be included, but it is not neccesary. A list of changes by author is though recommended.

--

This will also fix the complaints about GplV3 being too complicated. (obscure?)

Peace.

It is simple, but at the same time ambiguous. For example: To whom must the branches be available? The licence doesn't make this clear.

There's a reason that the GPL is long-winded, and that's because it explicitly states all of the conditions, ifs and buts about everything. In one sense it's quite a restrictive licence. The BSD licence is a lot shorter but it doesn't regulate nearly as much and therefore doesn't prevent derivative work from being made closed (nor was it ever intended to).

If you want a really simple licence, check out the WTFPL. It isn't exactly open-source friendly, but it's not closed-source friendly either. Actually, you could say that it is friendly to both.

[Paradox Ethereal]

I understand that this is a difficult subject for you, and that a licence with the name "wtf" in it, would suffice you. You didn`t not understand anything in my posts at all.

And I don`t see why the wordsound should be more complicated, when "open source" is an established term.

[Paradox Ethereal]

To the new readers, ofcourse the obscurities I have already discussed aren`t the only ones.

For instance, why would GNU/linux be more correct?
Shouldn`t it then be GNU/Gnome/Linux?
Or into the absurd, GNU/Gnome/Linux/Nividia (closed)/ etc.

You see it fails because of obscurity?

[Paradox Ethereal]

I probably said most of these things already, but was compelled to do another post.

RMS is like a sectleader with many followers, much like an Osama. And he has probably as little to do with the opensource movement as Osama has to do with Islam. They are both icons for some, but sensible people see through this.

We recently also had a killer in Norway, with very strong views, with a bimbo-mindset of "Hide all the whores and the booze, Eurabia is coming".

I have been listening to a lot of junk idiocy recently, and have started to realize that a lot of "leaders" within a lot of sectarian communities, are mad shaytans. Including poets like Rumi, that even are very popular in America, and seen as some guru, the eternal pantheist God, who puts forth hasish, alcohol and homophilia as something positive.

Therefore I react strictly, precisely and fiercely, to something that resembles sectarianhood to me. Particulary when RMS takes the role of thought-police, after my first email to him, and restrains me from using the word "open source", and replacing it with free software, which he claims is not opensource. etc. Which leads to confusion about what exactly is free, and thus the statement "free as in speech not as in beer". I am sure most people actually ignore most of that and only hear beer, and is the reason for popularity of beer in the opensource circles. If it wasn`t for the alcohol, beer would be fine enough, but it is rarely like that. (Iran actually has health-beer. (!). If I ever go there, I must taste it.)

And ofcourse the later addition of "libre". The beer statement wasn`t good enough? And exactly what is this free? He sings about "be free hacker"? Does the licence put you into nirvana, or what is it about freedom here?

To me all this can be simplified to simple statements, now that opensoure is an established practise.

And all the GNU/beer/free whatever can be gone, and it can be about opensource, without obscurities.