Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by brosis View Post
    Any developer that prefers "GPL2" over "GPL3" essentially needs that exploit and wants to produce closed source product.
    Alas, Michael oversimplified the original text and made several important mistakes at that.

    1) LibreCAD is only partially GPLv2-only, and that part is what's inherited from QCad Community Edition. It's also the part which Ribbonsoft, the original developer of QCad, refused to relicense. As far as I can tell, all new code is GPLv2+.

    2) Coin3D was relicensed to GPL-compatible BSD 3-clause in December 2011.

    3) OpenCASCADE was never GPLv2 and most likely never will be. It could be LGPL, but that decision was put on hold.

    4) "Both LibreCAD and FreeCAD both want to use LibreDWG and have patches available for supporting the DWG file format library" this is simply incorrect. LibreCAD team did experiment a little with LibreDWG support, but AFAIK never completed the patch. FreeCAD team never had any such patches.

    5) "Again, Git master on the LibreDWG code hasn't even been touched in two years." again, incorrect. Latest changes are from early 2012.

    Comment


    • #17
      This is what the LGPL is for

      I don't mind the FSF insisting on the v3 license, but shouldn't a library like this be using the LGPL?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by uid313 View Post
        Wow, it is retarded that LibreDWG is licensed under the GPLv3.

        It ought to be licensed under the LGPL or BSD license.

        This reminds me of the GNU Readline library which is also licensed under the GPL instead of the LGPL which causes pain to free software developers because now it cant be used in projects such as PHP.

        Some of these silly decisions (by RMS, FSF and the GNU project) really harm free software.
        Providing a piece of software under a certain license is harming no one; everyone's free to choose whatever software they want. However, a lot of software would flourish a lot better under open source rather than free software. If you're licensing your software under the GPL, you're flat-out alienating your software from closed source developers, which is a lot of programmers.

        The way I see it, API'S and LIBRARIES that are licensed under the GPL will just turn a lot of developers away, so they'll just write their own library that does what they need. Permissively licensed API's on the other hand opens itself up to every software developer on the fucking planet, increasing it's chances of having more people to contribute back. The world is not full of leeching bastards that will fuck everyone in the ass every chance they get. Some people will actually contribute back even though they don't have to. I think it's way better to open up your license to everyone in the world and let people voluntarily contribute back, rather than alienating yourself to only a certain portion of the world of software developers.

        With that said, I think the GPL is extremely useful for standalone applications and utilities, software that nobody is going to directly make money off of, but they really need. Coreutils, Blender, LibreOffice, Linux, etc. are good examples for licenses that I think do great under the GPL.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Apopas View Post
          Another phoronix article full of credibility...
          Well what did you expect, this whole 'article' exists only because Michael saw some opportunity to further his crusade against the FSF. And as such it's filled with misinformation in order to further that agenda.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by prokoudine View Post
            Alas, Michael oversimplified the original text and made several important mistakes at that.
            You think that these were 'mistakes'? Sorry to burst your bubble but they were obviously intended.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
              Well what did you expect, this whole 'article' exists only because Michael saw some opportunity to further his crusade against the FSF. And as such it's filled with misinformation in order to further that agenda.
              There's no one that discredits FSF more than FSF itself.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                You think that these were 'mistakes'? Sorry to burst your bubble but they were obviously intended.
                Personally, I'm quite prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by pholklore View Post
                  Yes, but _Free_ software licenses, like the GPL, support free software.
                  Except in this case, it's *not* supporting free software - it's punishing them for sticking with the mostly widely used version of the FSF's own license.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                    I don't mind the FSF insisting on the v3 license, but shouldn't a library like this be using the LGPL?
                    Yes, for a long time, I even thought that LGPL stands for LibraryGPL (as opposed to Lesser). This is what the FSF has to say:

                    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

                    Note that they admit that most of the GNU Libraries are LGPL, but now they decided (for reasons not stated there) that it is better to move away from that.

                    I think this is probably not a great decision from the FSF, in many ways (including ignoring the author of the GPL software trying to use the library). But I think there are a couple things that bother me a bit about Michael's article:

                    * This is clearly an opinion from him, so he should probably have an Editorial section. Since this reads like "News", but it's basically a long rant reiterating a main point, over and over.

                    * This same reasoning about "the FSF being restrictive" or "too strict" is a historical recipe for Falacies, or at least circular endless discussions. Because one camp says "BSD is more free, it lets you do anything". The other says "BSD allows people who screw your freedom abuse the system".

                    Me? I tend to agree with the latter opinion, but I think there are components like basic libraries that are better off LGPL or BSD, because by nature they need to be accessed by lots of free software with different licenses, and, at the end of the day, you want to help them all.

                    Cheers!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                      Except in this case, it's *not* supporting free software - it's punishing them for sticking with the mostly widely used version of the FSF's own license.
                      The mostly widely used version has the "or later" bit. Nobody's being punished. It was those (not the FSF) that chose to use GPLv2-without-or-later that explicitly chose to not make use of v3+ licensed code. It was a concious decision at the time, now they get to live with it. This is _not_ the FSF's fault, in any way possibly imaginable.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                        Except in this case, it's *not* supporting free software - it's punishing them for sticking with the mostly widely used version of the FSF's own license.
                        Licenses are designed to punish if you violate them. Every single of them.
                        Maybe they should have used public domain license, if they did not desire protection against stripping of four freedoms.

                        Also, "freedom for slaver" means "restriction for slave". "Restriction for slaver" means "freedom for slave".

                        "Freedom to close source down anytime" means "restriction to open the software".

                        "Freedom to open the software" means "restriction to close it down".

                        Not many licenses are free as in Freedom, but GPL definately IS the one.
                        So, if you step on Freedom in GPL, you trigger license violation. I don't think its hard to understand.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by mendieta View Post
                          Yes, for a long time, I even thought that LGPL stands for LibraryGPL (as opposed to Lesser).
                          It was Library initially :

                          http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.0.html (library)
                          http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html (lesser)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by pholklore View Post
                            The mostly widely used version has the "or later" bit. Nobody's being punished. It was those (not the FSF) that chose to use GPLv2-without-or-later that explicitly chose to not make use of v3+ licensed code. It was a concious decision at the time, now they get to live with it. This is _not_ the FSF's fault, in any way possibly imaginable.
                            LibreCAD team didn't choose GPLv2-only license. The inherited that from QCad. Would you like to actually read what you are discussing?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by brosis View Post
                              Not many licenses are free as in Freedom, but GPL definately IS the one.
                              So, if you step on Freedom in GPL, you trigger license violation. I don't think its hard to understand.
                              *Which* GPL, though? This isn't an argument about the merits of GPL vs something else - it's about a GPL project being unable to use a GPL library because the two GPL versions aren't compatible.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                                *Which* GPL, though? This isn't an argument about the merits of GPL vs something else - it's about a GPL project being unable to use a GPL library because the two GPL versions aren't compatible.
                                As stated, the GPL licences originating from the FSF are compatible, since they have the 'or later' clause. This was explicitly removed by Ribbonsoft thus creating a 'new' GPLv2 ONLY licence that has nothing to do with FSF.

                                There's nothing 'wrong' with them doing this, everyone has the right to licence 'their' code as per 'their' wishes, however the problems generated by this choice as discussed in the article does not fall on FSF, as it is Ribbonsoft who chose to make their code GPLv2 ONLY and thus incompatible with later GPL versions.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X