Your licencing suxx
taophp last edited by
Well, this browser seems to be a niece piece of software. But I've throw it away just after two pages. Why ? First of all, before even downloading it, I tried to find a licence information on the Vivaldi site about the Vivaldi browser : there is none. Endly, I find the [i]Kunena[/i] licence, which is for the forum. This bad, very bad, as I need to install the software, so use it and accept [b]the licence even before been able to read it![/b]. It should not be so bad if the licence was acceptable for me, but... So, I have downloaded it, installed it and launched it. First thing to do, check the licence. And this licence is a nightmare. Closed sources (fuck!), we are serious about privacy and will take care of yours (if I am serious about privacy, I would not even trust you! fuck!fuck!), we can change this licence at any time without warning (what? fuck!fuck!fuck!) and using this software, you accept this slavery (fuck!fuck!fuck!fuck!). My internal RMS laugh like Nelson (Ah!Ah!), he just told me to not install a soft before accepting about the licence. So the evil was done. But on the window just before the licence, there was a link which told me that some OpenSource software are used to make this shit. Oh. Are some [i]free[/i] software ? (About the difference, check [url=http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html]http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html[/url]). So, I have a [i]quick[/i] look on the credits. Wow! A VERY big list. With links to the original licence. I've just check two. ffmpeg is LGPL'ed (a weak version of the GPL). I did not want to explore the differences between LGPL and GPL to know if you have the right to do what you've done. So, I tried another. GTK?!? You mean the Gnome Tool Kit ? Yes, you mean it. I clicked the link, just in case. Yes, it's GPL'ed v2 (see the [url:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html]GPL v2[/url]. Do you really have a SEO plan based on how many halls of shame will point to your web site ? YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE FREE SOFTWARE (I.E. GPL'ED) IN PROPRIETARY ONE. NEVER. EVER. Do you want a trial ? No? So please, go OpenSource, at least, if not free. Oh, I erase Vivaldi immediately after that and will not give it a chance before you move on this question. And I will not recommend it to anybody.
GrandAdmiralThrawn last edited by
GPLv2 has loopholes which do allow software based on it to be used in context with cross-licensed products, and LGPL does this by design. It seems you are not aware of this. That is also the reason why Opera 12 could include such software.
Hence, GPLv3, which is more restrictive than v2.
GPLv3 is also the reason why other free software (more free than what GPLv3 allows) had to jump ship on certain occasions: E.g. FreeBSD can no longer ship with newer versions of GCC (GPLv2->GPLv3 now), and cannot be compiled with it either, which is why they hopped over to Clang/LLVM (NCSA/BSD) as their new systems compiler, because its license is less restrictive.
So, the Vivaldi team can legally include any GPLv2, LGPL or BSD licensed software as well as others with compatible licenses. They aren't doing anything illegal here from what I got checking the individual components' licenses.
They do have every right as defined by the licenses of the included components. So I'm sorry, but you are wrong. I haven't found a single component which would stand under GPLv3, so it seems clean to me.
So please, study the licenses properly and do not threaten the developers.. And don't use so many swear words, you remind me of a certain Mr. Stallman when ranting like that, only that he'd likely use a more developed vocabulary in expressing himself.
I respect if you prefer the GPLv3 over any others, as there are valid reasons to do so. It's no reason to insult people though.
Lunovus last edited by
GTK?!? You mean the Gnome Tool Kit ? Yes, you mean it. I clicked the link, just in case. Yes, it's GPL'ed v2 (see the GPL v2.
No, GTK+ or the GIMP Toolkit is licensed under LGPL (see it on the GTK+ website).
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE FREE SOFTWARE (I.E. GPL'ED) IN PROPRIETARY ONE. NEVER. EVER.
Do you want a trial ? No? So please, go OpenSource, at least, if not free.
Check your facts before you scream false accusations.
Oh, I erase Vivaldi immediately after that and will not give it a chance before you move on this question. And I will not recommend it to anybody.
Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
taophp last edited by
Ok, I'm wrong on facts. So, sorry for being so rude, it's not my usual way. I beg your pardon.
But there is at least one fact about I'm right, and this one is the first, the one that made me loose my nerves : there is no way to know the Vivaldi's licence before installing and using it ! You have to use it to discover its licence. Yes, I know, certainly a too common shame nowadays. I certainly would not have loose my time to download and install it, write my too rude comment and make you loose your time to read and respond if I had a chance to read this licence before.
I think you should really be clear on your website about licensing if you target Linux users.
Another fact that you might be missing is that most of those open-source or free software are just inherits of the Chromium project. So basically almost any project based in Chromium project is due to this.
GrandAdmiralThrawn last edited by
You are absolutely correct about that, they should make the license accessible before downloading the software.
I just looked again, and couldn't find it either. So that has to be fixed!
itsjustme last edited by
Do You Eat with that Mouth?
Ronaldlees last edited by
All OSS turf wars aside, why would someone looking at an Opera inspired browser expect it to be open source, since Opera never was open source?
OSS people like to talk about licenses, and which one is better. Actually, software is sometimes distributed without ANY license. Note I'm not a lawyer, but if someone puts an item on a public web site for download, without any security or password requirements, and no license or other prohibitions mentioned, that person has implicitly allowed for your personal use of said material. You could not distribute it to others based on such a no-license scenario.
In practical terms, the software vendors do include a license because in some countries not doing so creates an assumed position of putting it in the public domain. Again I'm not a lawyer. Maybe I should insert the disclaimer filled license here about not accepting any responsibility for the veracity of information.
The nice people at Vivaldi gave you something you can use for yourself personally. Think of it as a restaurant mint, from the box at the door. Can't share that!