26

Re: Unneeded discussions regarding Hyperbola

It seems some people deny really to read clear so here is a bit help: CC-BY-SA-3.0 is an unproblematic license and free, permissive. Just look here. To quote:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
  Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
  The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Perhaps some people in some forums outside for some systems should really stop claiming some information without reading the basics. You can always modify the data and share it, when you respect the original license and the people created the data. It is really not that complicated, just that some people seem to have an interest to follow strict what the FSF is naming without questioning the reasons - resulting in ignorance.

Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!

Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices: For a life of every being full with peace and kindness, including diversity and freedom. Capitalism is destroying our minds, the planet itself and the universe in the end!

27

Re: Unneeded discussions regarding Hyperbola

throgh wrote:

It seems some people deny really to read clear so here is a bit help: CC-BY-SA-3.0 is an unproblematic license and free, permissive. Just look here. To quote:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
  Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
  The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Perhaps some people in some forums outside for some systems should really stop claiming some information without reading the basics. You can always modify the data and share it, when you respect the original license and the people created the data. It is really not that complicated, just that some people seem to have an interest to follow strict what the FSF is naming without questioning the reasons - resulting in ignorance.

The
license in
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by … galcode.en

even shows in

4. Restrictions.

b. You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under: (i) the terms of this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version) that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g., Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported) ("Applicable License"). You must include a copy of, or the URI, for Applicable License with every copy of each Adaptation You Distribute or Publicly Perform. You may not offer or impose any terms on the Adaptation that restrict the terms of the Applicable License or the ability of the recipient of the Adaptation to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the Applicable License. You must keep intact all notices that refer to the Applicable License and to the disclaimer of warranties with every copy of the Work as included in the Adaptation You Distribute or Publicly Perform. When You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Adaptation, You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Adaptation that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Adaptation from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the Applicable License. This Section 4(b) , applies to the Adaptation as incorporated in a Collection, but this does not require the Collection apart from the Adaptation itself to be made subject to the terms of the Applicable License.

so with

(ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License;

I think this may be one-way compatible with later CC-BY-SA licenses.

https://creativecommons.org/share-your- … -licenses/

even shows

Version 3.0

Your contributions to adaptations of BY-SA 3.0 materials may only be licensed under:

    BY-SA 3.0, or a later version of the BY-SA license.
    Ported versions of the BY-SA license, version 3.0 or later.
    A license designated as a “Creative Commons Compatible License” as defined in BY-SA 3.0.

Currently, no non-CC licenses have been designated as compatible with BY-SA 3.0. Other licenses may be added to this list at any time according to the established process and criteria. Once a license has been added to this list, it will not be removed.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#which-cc

shows

Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 license (a.k.a. CC BY-SA) (#ccbysa)

    This is a copyleft free license that is good for artistic and entertainment works, and educational works. Like all CC licenses, it should not be used on software.

    CC BY-SA 4.0 is one-way compatible with the GNU GPL version 3: this means you may license your modified versions of CC BY-SA 4.0 materials under GNU GPL version 3, but you may not relicense GPL 3 licensed works under CC BY-SA 4.0.

    Because Creative Commons lists only version 3 of the GNU GPL on its compatible licenses list, it means that you can not license your adapted CC BY-SA works under the terms of “GNU GPL version 3, or (at your option) any later version.” However, Section 14 of the GNU GPL version 3 allows licensors to specify a proxy to determine whether future versions of the GNU GPL can be used. Therefore, if someone adapts a CC BY-SA 4.0 work and incorporates it into a GNU GPL version 3 licensed project, they can specify Creative Commons as their proxy (via https://creativecommons.org/share-your- … licenses/) so that if and when Creative Commons determines that a future version of the GNU GPL is a compatible license, the adapted and combined work could be used under that later version of the GNU GPL.

    Please be specific about which Creative Commons license is being used.

So CC-BY-SA 3.0 may even be one-way compatible with CC-BY-SA 4.0 that is one-way compatible with the GNU GPL version 3, though it may not work as well with software.

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i- … o-software

shows in part

Version 4.0 of CC’s Attribution-ShareAlike (BY-SA) license is one-way compatible with the GNU General Public License version 3.0 (GPLv3). This compatibility mechanism is designed for situations in which content is integrated into software code in a way that makes it difficult or impossible to distinguish the two. There are special considerations required before using this compatibility mechanism. Read more about it here.

Here is

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/S … ity:_GPLv3

There may be some considerations, if you update things under these, but I think CC-BY-SA 3.0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0 both look like unproblematic, freedom supporting licenses.

I'm not a lawyer, though even if you do not distribute things that are under CC-BY-SA 3.0, you can still use them very freely.

And these also can also be distributed, modified or modified and distributed under the terms of the license without many restrictions, without you getting sued, I think.

I do not know what "the FSF is naming" or who may be typing about this, though you may likely also explain why you think CC-BY-SA 3.0 may be a problem for you. All 3 of these do not look like a problem to me or for me.

https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id … l_contract

In part shows

Our community is built on constructive discourse and netiquette.

So if anyone does find something that is thought to be a problem in a license you can politely tell others why you think it is a problem. If what you say sounds rude to others, those people may be less likely to think it is constructive discourse, so it could help you if what you type is typed in a polite way.

28

Re: Unneeded discussions regarding Hyperbola

Well, time to quote another commentary done a few days ago. No, not mentioning the source, it is more important what is standing there instead who is saying this:

At times like this we understand and feel for the Hyperbola team attempting to move to OpenBSD (or was it FreeBSD or NetBSD??) and away from Linux, but as you can see part of the disease is transferring to anything craving Graphical User Interface "apps"

Okay, first things first: We are NOT ATTEMPTING to move to OpenBSD. To repeat: Hyperbola IS NOT moving anywhere. We are developing a complete operating-system and BSD-descendant. We are using OpenBSD-parts as base, yes. But that's it. There is no "migration" going on or likewise we are exchanging just some parts. Again: HyperbolaBSD is a BSD-descendaten operating-system, complete in all parts. It has an own kernel and an own userspace. It is NOT NetBSD alone, it is NOT FreeBSD alone and likewise also NOT OpenBSD alone.

Second point: Yes, we are going away from GNU/Linux. But we have communicated that often and repeat it again: HyperbolaBSD is a free, libre operating-system. We plan two repositories for HyperbolaBSD and want to use hyperman as forked pacman for our package-management. So Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre is our transition-base. What we do NOW is what we will do NEXT also. Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre is planned to represent the base in extra also. I repeat again:

core -> changing to full BSD-sphere, including basic userspace, tools, kernel and drivers
extra -> what we have now and making more and more fitting, including also GNU-packages

Third and last: The quote is representing the on-going rejection of reality. So to repeat this again: It is an illusion to think the on-going transfer and rework of free, libre software can anywhere be stopped. No, this is not possible. But what we can do is find a niche, develop independent and follow an ideal. We can also stop and freeze single packages in concrete versions, we can fork them within a bigger focus and community. In short: We can do all of that, when we leave those enforced dependencies behind us. And that is Hyperbola as it meant to be. It is not just "OpenBSD with GNU-parts". smile

And also as answer to up above, Other_Cody: We are telling friendly every misunderstanding when it gets here or we get a chance like now writing about. It is just that we cannot tell others posting elsewhere, because we have surely not the whole time to search the global network for misunderstandings and we also do not see it as our responsibility to inform others constant. If there are questions: Why not asking them here and clear up? Exactly that's the point of this thread. It would also result within a misconception if we would run behind others to correct and get into touch: Part of emancipation is also to acknowledge that everyone is responsible to ask and read, not others to carry information behind.

Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!

Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices: For a life of every being full with peace and kindness, including diversity and freedom. Capitalism is destroying our minds, the planet itself and the universe in the end!

29

Re: Unneeded discussions regarding Hyperbola

Hard forking OpenBSD means going in a different direction but possibly keeping some similar ideals but going further or further away as far as I know.

So i don't think there should be confusion.

Security part of OpenBSD, yes
Stability part? Even more yes
Minimalistic? Probably less in some cases.

This is my understanding though.

HyperbolaBSD: The Future of Secure Libre Lightweight Operating Systems!

30

Re: Unneeded discussions regarding Hyperbola

All correct. smile But people nevertheless get perhaps a bit confused when we mention bmake from FreeBSD for example. Yes, this was and is used but as said: HyperbolaBSD is already now going on own way. Seems the common way is to see "fork" as nevertheless to just exchange some basics or keep nevertheless the contact to the original project working. The exact description as hard fork is not used foremost. Thanks for the clear wording, zapper. smile

Human being in favor with clear principles and so also for freedom in soft- and hardware!

Certainly anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices: For a life of every being full with peace and kindness, including diversity and freedom. Capitalism is destroying our minds, the planet itself and the universe in the end!