Just an FYI.  Ushahidi is licensed under the LGPL.

GPL and LGPL protects software and all derivative software from having their source code hidden from the public. GPL takes the strong stance, saying that all software that uses the GPL software must itself be open sourced. This is known as a "reciprocal license" and makes it impossible for proprietary software developers to use GPL'ed code. In contrast, LGPL provides an exception to the usage and distribution of the software, allowing for non-free products to include the LGPL'ed software. In the GNU Project's own words: "using the Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs."

The reason we chose the LGPL back in 2008 was because we didn't know who would use the platform going forward.  At the time, the use-case in our mind was that someone might create a plugin or extension for Ushahidi that used something like Microsoft Outlook.  We didn't want that person/company not to get the job, or not be able to resell their work and make money off of it due to us having too narrow of a FoSS stance.  In short, we chose it so that our platform would be more attractive to third party developers.  In the end, I don't know if it has mattered that much, but at least you know the historical context.

Erik Hersman

www.ushahidi.com | www.iHub.co.ke
www.afrigadget.com | www.whiteafrican.com | @whiteafrican


On Nov 21, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Kelvin wrote:

@Aki on another thread you said:

On Ushaidi, I would say that it is following the original principles of the Free Software Foundation and it should not compare itself to Open Source. The first and ONLY kenyan  entity to do this. I salute Ushaidi and would use it any day, and if I improved it, I'd definately share it back. The rest are in full breach of Uhuru software ethics and practising proprietary standards. This should be illegal, and the setup of a GPL licensing policy body should investigate these for such practises. IMHO> :-)

I do not mean to offend you but this does not make sense to me: Ushaidi, I would say that it is following the original principles of the Free Software Foundation and it should not compare itself to Open Source.

"Open Source" means that your source code is freely available.  What does it mean to "compare yourself to open source"???

Ushahidi's source code is freely available. Ushahidi is open source!

Any software tha has its source code available is open source.  Now, the difference is that the makes of any software - open source or not - have the freedom to choose whatever licence they want to use!

They may choose the GPL (which you seem to like) or any other open source licence or even use their own proprietary licence.  Is this wrong?

The choice of the licence I want to use on my software should be a decision that I can make freely. Ama?

In most cases people who make software aren't running a charity.  They put time and effort into what they make and they should be free to licence it as they see fit!

Is making proprietary software wrong? 

Is making proprietary open source software wrong?

Does ALL open source software have to be licensed under the GPL?

I would say NO on all three...

Kelvin
www.likechapaa.com


On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Kelvin <kjayanoris@gmail.com> wrote:
@Aki

What does the phrase "OSS principles" even mean?

OSS is not an organisation that it may have principles.

Open source software is made by many different people/organisations for a great, great many different reasons.

Think about it.  As a software developer and when making software you may choose to make it open source.  You then have to choose from one of the many OSS licences.  These decisions will not be affected by anything but your own goals with he software.

You may choose to make your software OSS (and later on you may choose a particular OSS license) for any of the following reaons: personal philosophy, competitive advantage, money, etc etc.  Bottom line is that it is an individual decision made by the people who make software and their "principles" are as individual as they are.

I feel that you cannot compare the FSF to OSS as you are trying to do.  The FSF is an organisation that has certain goals and a certain philosophy.  OSS, on the other hand, is made by hundreds of thousands of different people all with different goals and/or philosophies.

For example as a developer I may decide to make my software open source to make it better able to compete with popular proprietary stuff.  I may then choose one of the more liberal OSS licences over the GPL so that I can have more control over my code.  My choices depend on me and what I want.

With my own very small project, DukaPress, we made it open source and GPL because we had to:
  1. To be able to compete with our already open source competitors
  2. Because all WordPress plugins should be GPL as WordPress itself according to popular opinion in the WP world
Basically, I am trying to say that what drives OSS is not a core set of goals or fundamental philosophy.  What drives OSS is very particular to the goals of the people behind a specific open source software project.

Kelvin
www.likechapaa.com


On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:29 AM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
A further definition of from the Free Software Foundation :
“Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,”not as in “free beer.”

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

  • The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  • The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
  • The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
 
 
I've highlighted the most important part of a community as the FSF.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


 
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:24 AM, aki <aki275@gmail.com> wrote:
The 4 ethical principles of Free Software Foundation :
- FREE FROM RESTRICTION
- FREE TO SHARE AND COPY
- FREE TO LEARN AND ADAPT
- FREE TO WORK OTHERS
OPEN SOURCE Ethical principles?



--

**Sent from my Microsoft/Intel based computer. Affordable & reliable computing for Decades**



_______________________________________________
Skunkworks mailing list
Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke
------------
List info, subscribe/unsubscribe
http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks
------------

Skunkworks Rules
http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94
------------
Other services @ http://my.co.ke


_______________________________________________
Skunkworks mailing list
Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke
------------
List info, subscribe/unsubscribe
http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks
------------

Skunkworks Rules
http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94
------------
Other services @ http://my.co.ke