From: Alejandro Colomar <alx-AT-kernel.org>

Hi all,

As you know, I’ve been maintaining the Linux man-pages project for the last 4 years as a voluntary. I’ve been doing it in my free time, and no company has sponsored that work at all. At the moment, I cannot sustain this work economically any more, and will temporarily and indefinitely stop working on this project. If any company has interests in the future of the project, I’d welcome an offer to sponsor my work here; if so, please let me know.

Have a lovely day! Alex

  • lud@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yes, but how is it malicious to comply with the license? If the license doesn’t require the code to be usable without a backend they have fully complied. Does the license even require usable code at all?

    As long as they give the source code they are required to give I don’t see any problem with it.

    • starshipwinepineapple@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      The difference is that commercialization is inherent with a free (libre) open source license. Whereas going against the intent, but still legally gray area, is imo malicious compliance because it circumvents what the license was intended to solve in the first place.

      But that’s all i really care to add to this convo, since my initial comment my intent was just to say that the AGPLv3 license does not stop corporations from getting free stuff and being able to charge for it-- especially documentation. Have a good one