Microblog
in reply to @ 2016-057.593ZZFS is present in the Ubuntu release as a kernel module (zfs.ko) and as explained in the article you link, this is a GPL violation.
in reply to @ 2016-057.563ZActually, signing over rights would have prevented this case from going forward at all (since presumably Linux Foundation would have them and VMware is a member there)
in reply to @ 2016-057.204ZYou can change firefox and redistribute the source changes. If you make binaries with your changes, just don't enable the mozilla branding compile options
in reply to @ 2016-057.203ZI think so. Sounds like permission in writing. #TINLA
in reply to @ 2016-057.201ZThose two certainly look open source to me. What is the issue exactly?
If you're more used to quickbooks-style, I suggest trying GNU Cash
in reply to @ 2016-057.199ZJust mentioning a name is very dubious IMHO. #IANAL
in reply to @ 2016-057.197ZNo, the shim does not make the whole thing derivative of course. But it does make the shim derivative. And they are distributing the shim. That is the infringement
in reply to @ 2016-057.196ZLinux kernel license contains a specific exception to the GPL for userspace programs making syscalls to avoid this issue
in reply to @ 2016-056.789ZThey could use it in OEL if the did the relicense. But for some reason they think pushing btrfs to reinvent something they already own is a better way…
in reply to @ 2016-056.787ZSFC is already funding a module compliance case (the VMWare case). My guess would be they wait on the outcome of that while proceeding with "diplomatic means" here for now
in reply to @ 2016-056.785ZZFS exists independent of Linux and is not a derivative
But the code that makes it work with the Linux filesystem APIs is not independent
in reply to @ 2016-056.547ZBesides the wrongness you're driving for, there's also the fact that you never need to use CLI for anything, many of us just prefer to. Members of my family don't CLI their debian or ubuntu installs, they GUI everything
in reply to @ 2016-055.909Zthey never actually cared about the brand dilution before
Mozilla specifically asked Debian to stop using the Firefox name
in reply to @ 2016-055.908ZPretty sure it did ages ago…
in reply to @ 2016-054.767ZPermissive would be safest to allow use on Appstore, but see https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/4779o0/opensourcing_an_apsstore_app/d0as3v1 MPL might work
in reply to @ 2016-054.724ZMPL might be appstore compatible, see: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1762/is-the-mozilla-public-license-compatible-with-apples-app-store
in reply to @ 2016-054.705ZAll I need is to prevent someone making commercial profit out of MY app!
If you want to inhibit big corporate exploitation, then copyleft is often enough. The situation is somewhat complicated because most copyleft licenses prevent an app from being put on the Apple appstore (because of Apple's terms). It would not prevent you from putting it on the appstore of course (unless you accept patches).
If you actually wish to prohibit commercial use of your app, you will find that such a prohibition is incompatible with the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd
in reply to @ 2016-054.548ZAny plans for a non-steam version?
in reply to @ 2016-052.175ZI said this in my other comment, but to be very clear: the only good way to do this is with a third-party signing server, which could be libre or not (obviously we hope that it is). You want third party verification, so you need a third party.
in reply to @ 2016-052.174Zit is impossible for us or our clients to modify the test results after the fact
Unless they are server-side storage only (in which case the software could be libre on a third party server to get the same effect) or it's digitally signed by a remote server (also very easy with libre software) this to totally false. Locally-produced, locally-stored digital data can always be modified.