WEEK6 Copyleft - the free software licenses

    Copyleft, a term coined from the movement of free licenses, with the intention to antagonize copyrights. It determines how licenses will affect derived work, thus how a creator’s work is influenced and categorized based on the licenses of the basis he used.

    There are three categories, strong copyleft, weak copyleft and no copyleft. Strong copyleft requires that for all derived creations the licenses from the original are kept. This impedes the creation of proprietary software. A strong license is the GNU General Public License. Whilst it enforces barely any restrictions on the use, development and copying of the software, these liberties however, are only ensured if the derivatives are pertained to the same rights. This means that the licenses are hereditary, therefore the derivatives cannot be made proprietary. Strong copyleft licenses therefore impede the linking to proprietary or non-free software, making it rather inept for developers. This type of software is more suited for end users, who are not planning in merging software’s. The strong measures also keep the software free, protecting it from being exploited by larger software companies such as Microsoft, Facebook or Apple.

    Differently, the weak copyleft allows more freedom, although still tying the derivatives to the original’s licenses, exceptions enable hybridity. Software of different license can be “linked” and even proprietary software can be included in the derivatives, making the licenses more acquitted for developers and mainly for creating software libraries. The European Union Public License (EUPL) is an example of a weak copyleft license. Whilst initially being a strong copyleft license, to enable a greater scope of compatibility, it implemented some exceptions moving it towards a weaker copyleft license. The license was developed with the intent of creating a license that is following EU laws and regulations. Thus, allowing for a more fluent intra-EU software development and clarifying elements such as warranty and limitations of liability. Furthermore, there is the plan to promote official translations of software into all European languages, making it more accessible to developers and users. Personally, I like the idea of the EU having their own, all member state incorporating, license that promote cooperation and inclusion throughout the EU. Moving it towards a weaker copyleft license also facilitates further cooperation.

    The third license type is a no copyleft license, whilst derivatives can be made proprietary the original software continues to be free, as stated by the license. This makes it welcome for developers to use as it can easily be linked and developed in an individual manner. One example is the Apache license, which is used by many projects such as the Apache Web Server, Apache OpenOffice and even the VLC media player. Although the use of non-copyleft licenses has increased during the last decade, strong and weak copyleft licenses are still preferred and are therefore more prominent. I think the lesser success of the license type, is that many creators that offer a free software do want to keep it free or at least maintain certain rights and using a non-copyleft license does not ensure that.

    The idea of copyleft is intriguing and clearly meant to protect the freedom and availability of software. The freedom is slightly limited to promote software development and linking, however, it is for the creator to decide how the original and its derivatives are to be integrated.

Kommentare

Kommentar veröffentlichen

Beliebte Posts aus diesem Blog

WEEK11 Part1 Censorship: Who should censor?

       Censorship is a strongly debated topic, whilst some states used it to control the content their citizens can access, limiting their rights and freedoms, some institutions argue that their censorship protects its networks users. One example are libraries or educational institutions, especially schools censor certain websites such as gaming website, adult websites and possibly others. Some are blocked with the argument that they should not be accessed by children and for certain websites it’s the distraction that is a factor.      At our school initially YouTube was blocked which teachers very quickly recognized as a problem as our school was digitally proactive and incorporated online resources into everyday class. Multiple other websites were taken off the ban, however the school office was reluctant to remove the ban completely. Teachers and staff were provided with a separate internet connection so that they were not required to circumvent any security measures. However, whe
Mehr anzeigen

WEEK14 Neck-muscles from Typing - Paul Alexander

     In 1952 the six-year-old Paul Alexander becomes ill and soon is diagnosed with Polio. The chances are slim but he manages to survive, not without losing his mobility and physical freedom. Since then Alexander has been confined to the range of his “iron lung”. The iron long keeps his vital organs alive, but requires large amounts of energy and technical thus making a normal life extremely difficult. Alexander is immobilized from the neck down, however learned to use different tools with his mouth to draw, type or control other elements.      Alexander worked hard to learn to breathe without his iron lung. For the first three seconds he needed almost a year of practice, but he was tenacious and wanted to explore the yard, then the streets and after completing his studies he managed to appear in court as a lawyer for hours at end.      In 1967 Alexander succeeded in completing high school without ever attending class and went on to study law at the University of Texas (Austin). H
Mehr anzeigen

WEEK11 Part 2 Privacy: What if we know what they know?

     Another disputed topic is online privacy, should we have complete privacy? It is a very complicated discussion as the counter argument is strong. Complete privacy also ensures a high degree of anonymity therefore making it more difficult for law enforcement to identify criminals or other wrong doers. However, an individual with no intentions of criminal activity will feel wrongfully treated.      The NSA and other security agencies run security checks on specific words, phrases and activities on certain websites. If the words “bomb”, “how to build a weapon” etc. are searched the user will most probably be registered by their system. In such cases I would agree that an increased interest in such topics should be monitored as they could pose a certain threat, but as somebody that studies engineering and is sometimes merely interested in knowing how things work and the science behind certain technologies, I feel uncomfortable doing research on such topics. Furthermore, investigativ
Mehr anzeigen