News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change by icebraining on Saturday October 01, 2016 @11:31AM (#12618265)
So if you disagree that companies should be allowed to patent software, mathematics and processes, you might not pick a license that validates the existence of those patents.

This sounds absurd to me. Software patents don't go away because one stops believing in them. Either the courts enforce them or not.

Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change by fungos on Saturday October 01, 2016 @11:46AM (#12618321)
Sure, but I see the idea as a kind of boycott/protest. I disagree with patents, mainly software patents, consequently I will never use a license that consider patents.
Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change by cyphar on Saturday October 01, 2016 @01:24PM (#12618863)
That's not how laws work. At all. Even the GPLv3 (authored by one of the biggest activists against software patents) has clauses relating to software patents -- because they are a legitimate threat to software freedom and need to be addressed. Just because you don't like patents doesn't make the problem go away -- in fact by ignoring it you're making the problem worse because then your code's license has no protection for your users.
Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change by icebraining on Saturday October 01, 2016 @12:46PM (#12618656)
But a boycott is supposed to help the cause, no? All you're doing is preventing a lot of people from using your code from fear that you'll sue them - some of which who might end up using an alternative from a company that holds and supports patents.
Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change by yarrel on Saturday October 01, 2016 @01:10PM (#12618778)
That's not a boycott. That's a capitulation.