Notices by Matt "msw" Wilson (msw@mstdn.social), page 2

@webmink @sjvn to me things can be true at the same time:

1) Google policy and practice likely harm copyleft (a better example may be https://lwn.net/Articles/434318/)

2) Copyright maximalism is bad.

3) Fair use provisions necessary to implement a compatible API may serve the public.

4) If you were on Oracle's side in that case, it was the wrong side of history.

@webmink @sjvn if Java had been FOSS from the start we would have been living in a much different timeline.

@byterhymer @oemb1905 @lightweight Trying to frame clinically, communities like FreeBSD have mindfully adopted policy that biases against copyleft licenses like GPL, and have dedicated efforts to remove GPL dependencies.

There's nothing /wrong/ about that, in my mind. It's great to have many options in a diverse #FOSS ecosystem.
https://wiki.freebsd.org/GPLinBase

@byterhymer @oemb1905 @lightweight This policy goal is important enough to have accumulated some amount of time, attention, and dedication to the effort to convince the broader community why they may want to consider selecting a BSD-like license instead of GPL.

Again, nothing wrong with this in my mind. It is useful for developers to be informed by many diverse opinions.
https://docs.freebsd.org/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/

@webmink @lightweight @osi I've never found OSI to be skewed on this, as a matter of policy.

I also I think the role of organizations like the Linux Foundation is different than the role of the OSI.

And projects associated with the Linux Foundation follow the policy preferences of the companies primarily funding the development.

Hence, we have a lot of "Apache 2.0 + CLA" in many LF projects these days.

@webmink @lightweight @osi Here'a a link from the #WaybackMachine ;-)

https://web.archive.org/web/20080807051113/http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/links_for_2008_08_04

@webmink @lightweight @osi

That said, someone wise once wrote on the Internet:

"""
if licenses are the constitution for communities like Moglen says, this act of telling some communities they don't count as open source is patronizing and colonialist. And that's OSI's job :-)
"""

Then projects using the #Mozilla Public License (#MPL) were no longer welcome. https://www.cnet.com/culture/google-bans-the-mozilla-public-license/

Personally speaking, this has always rubbed me the wrong way.

I think it set a bad precedent of for-profit entities using their platforms to shift public perception around #FOSS.

Sadly, I think others have followed in their footsteps and emulated this strategy.

I remember the #FOSS community reaction claiming that Google used their #OpenSource hosting service, code.google.com, (eventually @killedbygoogle) to bend perceptions on licenses in ways that were favorable to them.

First, #AGPLv3 licensed #FreeSoftware projects were banned...

https://www.cnet.com/culture/googles-festering-problem-with-the-agpl/