[Info-vax] OpenVMS app development, kitting (was: Re: Making Open Source Tools Work for VMS)

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 11/23/2021 1:00 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 11/23/21 8:38 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> In article <619ce9b1$0$698$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>,
>> =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= <arne at vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>
>>> On 11/23/2021 2:19 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2021 1:36 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>>>> BTW: OpenVMS customers REJECTED an offer to open-source OpenVMS.  Yes.
>>>>> Really. Outright rejected that. Put slightly differently, some of the
>>>>> open-source preferences around here can be... unexpected. Even among
>>>>> folks that have worked with OpenVMS for decades.
>>>>
>>>> No surprise.  People who use VMS like VMS.  People who use VMS don't
>>>> like some open-source code,
>>>
>>> Almost all VMS people use lots of open source.
>>
>> Yes.  Not all is bad, by any means.  I use some myself.  But there are
>> many things to criticize about Gnu philosophy.  I can understand people
>> not wanting VMS to go that route.
>>
> 
> I agree. GPLed software is not free it is encumbered and controlled
> by the FSF.  "Free" Opensource Software needs to come under something
> like the BSD license which makes it truly free with no controlling
> strings attached.

I think you are mixing some things up.

Most GNU projects has a policy of assigning copyright to FSF,
but that has nothing to do with GPL. Lot of GPL software has
nothing to do with FSF (except that FSF created the GPL license
text decades ago).

Whether permissive or copyleft licenses are most free depends
perspective. Permissive licenses allow for proprietary forks
while copyleft licenses ensure the code remains open source.
Is it more or less free if you restrict someone from restricting
others?

Strong copyleft licenses (GPL, AGPL) does not work for commercial
usage of libraries. That is a well known issue and often a topic for
heated debate. The practical impact is pretty small as very few
libraries are under such licenses. Libraries for obvious reasons
tend to pick weak copyleft licenses (LGPL, GPL with linking exception,
MPL etc.) - or permissive licenses.

Which permissive license to pick (BSD 2 clause, BSD 3 clause, Apache,
MIT etc.) is not so important. And it seems like the choice is
mostly determined by who is releasing the open source than the
specific license text. C code to be released under permissive
license are very often one of the BSD license flavors.

Arne