7 ms·
Remind is Free Software and what you are suggesting would make the license unfree. Obviously the author doesn't want that. Instead he chose to keep Remind free
by codeup 16y ago
Remind is Free Software and what you are suggesting would make the license unfree. Obviously the author doesn't want that. Instead he chose to keep Remind free and remind Apple users of Apple's opposition to Free Software. It's hard to miss the logic.
- Semiapies 16y ago"what you are suggesting would make the license unfree" Yes. If you want to make different demands of users of your software than those of the GPL, BSD license, etc., you should not use one of those licenses. If you want to use a free license, accept users' freedoms and don't be petulant that some people will choose differently from you.
- codeup 16y ago"If you want to make different demands of users of your software than those of the GPL, BSD license, etc., you should not use one of those licenses." Licenses are legal instruments and the terms of free licenses give defined freedoms. The nag message for Apple users does not contradict the license under which Remind is published (GPL). The message, reflective of the author's "petulance" as you put it, is, legally speaking a feature of the software and it is subject to the same licensing terms. I think you are mixing up the license with a vague notion of the "spirit" of the license. These are two different things. You may still argue that the nag message goes against the "spirit" of a free license (while not against the terms), but the counter-argument made by the author is that this measure is justified in the face of Apple's restrictive behavior.
- Semiapies 16y agoI am "mixing up" nothing. The author may conclude that any number of things are justified by his opinion of Apple's behavior, but that conclusion is hardly beyond criticism in the way you try to imply.