Euskaraz hitz egiten dut. (Basque language: I speak Basque)
Spanish is also my mother tongue. As you can see, I also speak English.
- 1 Post
- 34 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
Cake day: July 31st, 2020
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
neoOS, an operating system which can be ran inside of a browser.
That’s a personal decision. You could list the pros and cons and then take a decission.
I think you can use Gregorio for your daily life (probably you already do that) and sometimes, when you have to do a legal operation, be patient as until now.
I’m a 100% Spanish person and I have the same difficulties as you! Mi name and surname are Basque (a language spoken in Spain, but different to Castilian Spanish; there are millions of Spanish people with Catalan names too + all the people from Europe, etc.).
Every time I have to spell my name or my surname (or both), I do it. And personally I have no intention to change them. My name and my language, as my family and my history, are important parts of my identity, and I’m proud of them. I’d recomend you to do the same, here in Spain and in any other place of the world. Also to speak Polish to your childs if you ever have any.
But as I said before, it’s a personal decision and if the legal stuff you have to do sometimes are a real problem for you, change your name. Just be sure that you will not regret later for giving up a part of your identity.
3·1 year agoDegrowth now.
It look great!
What Drone does, synchronize your Gitea with GutHub? The opposite?
In case the free version and the proprietary version of the software can be slightly different (the free version’s source code is on a public repository, but the proprietary one is in another place and some files are different), you must ensure that the contributor really understands there is another version of the software and his/her contribution is going to be added to that version too. And perhaps in the proprietary version you will need to merge the contribution in a different way, and in the future remove or extend that part. How can the contributor agree now or in the future what you do and how you do if he/she can’t even see that software? It’s weird and probably that’s way people use to recommend to give the copyright to the proprietary version owner. Actually, I’m not sure.
Anyway, in your case, if the repository is unique and public (and will be in the future), and both licenses are clearly referenced (LICENSE files, README file and source files), I think contributors don’t need to give you the copyright and can contribute just normally. Note that you don’t want to say that both license apply, but that one of them apply in a given moment. You can’t use SPDX in your case because one of the licenses will not be free, but I’m talking about something equivalent to the OR operator of this specification.
I have been thinking about this subject and my opinion about dual licensing for this case has changed. Let me explain:
The dual licensing requires you to create a non free license different to the other LGPLv3 license. I think it’s complex to write a good and clear license with the requirements you want: dynamic and static linking, authorship recognition… In case you need to modify the license in the future, you need to write it in a way that the contributions of the past automatically will accept the new license. Finally, you could end writing the whole LGPL license again just changing the linking part!
For that reason, perhaps the most simple and secure way to do what you want to do is just use the LGPLv3 license with the linking exception just the same way other projects already do (follow the link to see 3 examples). This is what @octt@feddit.it mentioned at first. Basically you create a LICENSE file containing the LGPLv3 license (as many libraries and software projects do) and above the license you include the exception:
All files in this repository are licensed as follows. If you contribute to this repository, it is assumed that you license your contribution under the same license unless you state otherwise.
This software is licensed under the LGPLv3, included below.
As a special exception to the GNU Lesser General Public License version 3 (“LGPL3”), the copyright holders of this Library give you permission to convey to a third party a Combined Work that links statically or dynamically to this Library without providing any Minimal Corresponding Source or Minimal Application Code as set out in 4d or providing the installation information set out in section 4e, provided that you comply with the other provisions of LGPL3 and provided that you meet, for the Application the terms and conditions of the license(s) which apply to the Application.
Except as stated in this special exception, the provisions of LGPL3 will continue to comply in full to this Library. If you modify this Library, you may apply this exception to your version of this Library, but you are not obliged to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. This exception does not (and cannot) modify any license terms which apply to the Application, with which you must still comply.
As far as I know, this will make the software to become not free according to GNU, but at least you will get what you want in a quite reliable way.
LGPL is the license that fits more to your requirements but as some responses already pointed out, only dynamic linking would be allowed, not static linking too as you want. Perhaps you could create a new (non free) license based on LGPL license, but I don’t recommend you to do that.
In your case, you can weight up the dual licensing. If you publish the code under LGPLv3 license AND copyright license, like MySQL does, people will understand that it’s a free software project; they can choose the LGPL version for dynamic linking and the other version when they need to link statically.
To avoid further problems and keep a unique software project, you would ask software contributors (if any) to assign the copyright of the modification to you, so you can keep both version of the software (the LGPLed and the copyrighted one) always exactly the same.
For a big project this is risky, because someone could say no and create a fork of the LGPLed version of your project with his/her modifications, but if it’s a little project and you explain that the copyrighted version is just to allow static linking for those developers they need it, I don’t think you will have problems.
NOTE: in the copyright license you will need to explain that the software can’t be modified (at least that exact version), that can be used, copied and distributed freely without previous permission, that dynamic and static linking is explicitly allowed, that you require authorship recognition this way, and that for all the usages not requiring static linking you recommend the LGPL licensed version of the library. This is just a proposal.
Very good and accurate explanation! More info at GNU’s FAQ.
yewtu.be for me too, because is easy to remember and works well.
I updated the Spanish subtitles based on your improvements. Thank you very much for your help!
Here it is: https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/edit/TzMSPVLi5xyPE0X3dFCRsFiu/
Thank you for fixing English translation! More translations welcome :-)
I think intellectual property does not exist and copyright is based on a lie. You can watch this short video on Peertube: https://kolektiva.media/w/fYv5ELRxj1MtQvT5viTCes?subtitle=en
Compulsory education arrived with industrialization. If children are in the school their parents can be working in the factory.
I recommend you to read about consensus and decision making for grassroots. They are some cool books and websites. They are many local groups that coordinate on big social movements using this techniques (without anyone representing others to take decisions). They are slower, they take more time, but there is not power accumulation and are far more democatic.
I tried to answer this here: https://lemmy.ml/post/186957/comment/126842
A little clarification about the terminology I use: I use the term “free software” as RMS coined it (“free like in freedom”) and as GNU strictly defines on its website. They are some similar MIT licenses (the most common one is X11). Anyway they are very similar, free and GNU GPL compatible as you can read here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11License
MIT licenses and other ones (BSD…) are free but are not “copyleft”. They don’t require all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well. Perhaps, that’s what you mean when you say “!= free”!
Note that all the source code in the public domain is free and not copyleft too so I agree with RMS when he defines copyleft software as a subset of all the existing free software (now and in the future, when all tends to become public domain).
In fact, GNU distinguishes more kind of slightly different free licenses:
- Strong copyleft: GPL, AGPL…
- Weak copyleft: LGPL, WxWidgets…
- Non copyleft: X11 (“MIT”), FreeBSD…
Note: free software != GPL compatible. EUPL 1.1 and 1.2 are free software but they are not compatible with GPL. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#EUPL-1.1
Sorry for this long comment. My English is quite poor so probably some parts are difficult to understand. If someone wants clarifications of this clarifications, just say it and I’ll try again 😅
I don’t want to ruin your joke but MIT is both, free and open at the same time.
MIT licensed software is free/libre software according to GNU and is “open source” according to OSI.
Suppose you took a photo and publish it under CC BY license. If someone uses it on an article and references your photo properly, the article can have any license because it’s not an adaptation/remix of your photo, the article just has your photo inside. If you publish the photo under CC BY-SA license, the same applies (in this case, the reference to your pohoto in the article will be slightly different).
Now suppose that you publish your photo under CC BY license and someone makes and adaptation/remix of it. For example the new work is your photo cropped and with some filters applied. The author of the adaptation can add the NonCommertial clause to the derivative work. He/she can license its new work with CC BY-NC license or with CC BY-NC-SA, stopping any commertial use of the adaptation and if he/she wants getting paid for any commerdial use.
But if you publish your photo under CC BY-SA license, this is not possible. The adaptation of your photo must use the same license. The remix, the derivative work, must be CC BY-SA too! To make any other use, the adaptor needs your permission.
Did I explain myself?
You have more info in the Creative Commons FAQ:
I got the email two days ago:
Still waiting for the second email. As far as I know this kind of situations are usual with Pixelfed too.