Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

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

  • #31
    Free? Don't make me laugh

    It's bad enough that GPL is incompatible with most other free source licenses. We don't need it to be incompatible with itself. Freedom my ass, at this point they're just trying to validate their own existence.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
      It's bad enough that GPL is incompatible with most other free source licenses. We don't need it to be incompatible with itself. Freedom my ass, at this point they're just trying to validate their own existence.
      Learn to read moron. This is NOT being incompatible with GPL, this is being incompatible with a MODIFIED GPLv2 licence which was DELIBERATELY MODIFIED TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH ANY OTHER GPL LICENCE.

      Comment


      • #33
        The problem is with LibreCAD and FreeCAD not FSF

        Both LibreCAD and FreeCAD both want to use LibreDWG and have patches available for supporting the DWG file format library, but can't integrate them. The programs have dependencies on the popular GPLv2
        Well this is where the problem lies!

        If LibreCAD and FreeCAD wants to use LibreDWG they are the ones who need to figure out how to upgrade their licenses to GPLv3, not the other way around.

        They will have to figure out how to remove the dependencies on GPLv2.

        Comment


        • #34
          Yeah, (L)GPLv3 is a much imrpoved license over v2, and just does a better job of achieving it's goals. Unlike the FSF, I do agree that all libraries such as this should be *L*GPL though. That said, unlike this article, I still don't think this is an issue with the library.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
            Learn to read moron. This is NOT being incompatible with GPL, this is being incompatible with a MODIFIED GPLv2 licence which was DELIBERATELY MODIFIED TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH ANY OTHER GPL LICENCE.
            I read it, nowhere in the article was the word modified mentioned. In fact your comment is the first mention of a modification. It was about GPLv2 being incompatible with GPLv3. GPLv3 adds additional restrictions which by definition makes it contradict with freedoms granted in GPLv2.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
              I read it, nowhere in the article was the word modified mentioned. In fact your comment is the first mention of a modification. It was about GPLv2 being incompatible with GPLv3.
              If you are referring to the misinformation bullshit Micheal was splurting when linking to the actual article (or rather blog post): http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/e...-new-beginning

              But if you read the actual article you would know that Michael was spewing bullshit, GPLv2 is NOT incompatible with GPLv3. This pertains to code where a company (Ribbonsoft) deliberately REMOVED compability with later GPL versions by taking away the 'or later' clause from GPLv2 and then licenced said code under this 'new' licence they created. Or if you couldn't bother to read the article you could simply read the posts in this very thread to which you responed.

              Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
              GPLv3 adds additional restrictions which by definition makes it contradict with freedoms granted in GPLv2.
              Obviously there are changes to GPLv3 which makes it different from GPLv2, otherwise it would not exist, but it does not mean that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, the reason they are compatible is because GPLv2 as officially defined by the FSF (who created the licence), has a 'or later' clause. This means that you can use that GPLv2 licenced code as GPLv2, OR at your discretion use it as GPLv3 (or GPLv4, etc should such a licence emerge)

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                If you are referring to the misinformation bullshit Micheal was splurting when linking to the actual article (or rather blog post): http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/e...-new-beginning

                But if you read the actual article you would know that Michael was spewing bullshit, GPLv2 is NOT incompatible with GPLv3. This pertains to code where a company (Ribbonsoft) deliberately REMOVED compability with later GPL versions by taking away the 'or later' clause from GPLv2 and then licenced said code under this 'new' licence they created. Or if you couldn't bother to read the article you could simply read the posts in this very thread to which you responed.


                Obviously there are changes to GPLv3 which makes it different from GPLv2, otherwise it would not exist, but it does not mean that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, the reason they are compatible is because GPLv2 as officially defined by the FSF (who created the licence), has a 'or later' clause. This means that you can use that GPLv2 licenced code as GPLv2, OR at your discretion use it as GPLv3 (or GPLv4, etc should such a licence emerge)
                Ribbonsoft did NOT deliberately remove compatibility with later versions of the GPL by taking away the 'or later' clause from GPLv2.

                From GPL v2 text:
                Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
                The GPL v2 already explicitly states that "any later version" is not an explicit right granted by GPL v2 and the license does not need to be modified to avoid granting that right. If a project is licensed under GPL and specifies v2 but doesn't explicitly specify "or later" then that clause is not activated.

                So please, refrain from calling me a moron for my inability to read. If a project is GPL v2 without specifying "or later" it is by default incompatible with GPL v3.

                Comment


                • #38
                  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.
                  Nothing retarded about it at all, GPLv3 is the right choice for LibreDWG. LGPL and BSD are lousy choices for freedom.

                  Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                  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.
                  There are many non copyleft alternatives to GNU readline that are readily available. And no the FSF, GNU and GPLv3 are not hurting Free software in the slightest, Free software grows every year because of of the FSF/GNU and GPL.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                    because GPLv2 as officially defined by the FSF (who created the licence), has a 'or later' clause.
                    "or later" is not a part of the GPL.

                    You can license your code under "GPLv2 or later" and many people do. But if you license your code under GPLv2, then it's GPLv2 only. Like the Linux kernel and plenty of other software.

                    "or later" means giving the FSF the permission to relicense your code. Since many people trust the FSF, they do this.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by pholklore View Post
                      Thank you, but I'm not a wacko, and I am concerned by this stuff. Of course I am. If getting things done would be more important, I'd consider proprietary software just as good an option. That argument just smells like double-standard. No, keeping software free is the most important.
                      Actually, no. When proprietary software is just as good an option we use binary drivers, binary firmware and play proprietary games. Because computer is a fucking TOOL not a RELIGION.
                      Originally posted by pholklore View Post
                      If you don't agree, feel free to reimplement whatever FSF code you dislike in whatever license you prefer. Nobody's forcing you to use the FSF code.
                      Pretend it doesn't exist, and be happy.
                      I'm sure developers will. It is FSF's making us Linux users look bad, very bad. FSF should really die as it only creates additional reasons for ridiculing us.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
                        Ribbonsoft did NOT deliberately remove compatibility with later versions of the GPL by taking away the 'or later' clause from GPLv2.
                        Yes they did, if you do not include 'or, later' then the licence is de facto incompatible with future versions or the GPL, not including the 'or later' clause is a deliberate choice to keep the code GPLv2 ONLY.

                        Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
                        So please, refrain from calling me a moron for my inability to read. If a project is GPL v2 without specifying "or later" it is by default incompatible with GPL v3.
                        Of course it is, since it's then GPLv2 ONLY, how could it possibly be compatible with GPLv3? That is why the FSF include the 'or later' clause in the source code they release, as do the majority of other developers licencing their code under the GPL. The most notable exception is obviously Linux which is is GPLv2 only.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                          Yes they did, if you do not include 'or, later' then the licence is de facto incompatible with future versions or the GPL, not including the 'or later' clause is a deliberate choice to keep the code GPLv2 ONLY.
                          You misread what I wrote. I said they didn't take away the clause from GPL v2 (ie they didn't modify the license). You could argue they intentionally broke compatibility by not activating the clause, I won't dispute that. It's merely possible that a project might specify a version without realising the implications that may have with "or later" further down the road.

                          Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                          Of course it is, since it's then GPLv2 ONLY, how could it possibly be compatible with GPLv3? That is why the FSF include the 'or later' clause in the source code they release, as do the majority of other developers licencing their code under the GPL. The most notable exception is obviously Linux which is is GPLv2 only.
                          Why should GPL v2 be incompatible with GPL v3? That's a choice the FSF made and I don't agree with their decision. BSD, MIT and other licenses are compatible with each other without being identical. My original complaint was that the FSF claim their licenses are for freedom but they're far too restrictive.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
                            It's merely possible that a project might specify a version without realising the implications that may have with "or later" further down the road.
                            How could that be? They licenced under GPLv2, just like with any other licence, unless you (as in code author) or the licence specifically allow for re-licencing then there is no 'later down the road'.

                            Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
                            Why should GPL v2 be incompatible with GPL v3?
                            Because the GPL licences are reciprocal, meaning that code which includes GPL licenced code needs to be available under that same (or compatible) licence, that's the whole point of the GPL licence. Now since GPLv2 and GPLv3 are different licences with different conditions, a project licenced under GPLv2 will be (as it is reciprocal) incompatible with GPLv3 (which is also reciprocal), now to limit the fragmentation problems the introduction of new GPL versions can cause (like with GPLv2 and GPLv3) there is the 'or later' clause which makes sure that you can combine source code under different GPL licences.

                            Again, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are different licences, they are not compatible, a piece of GPLv2 code with the 'or later' clause is only compatible with GPLv3 because it allows itself to be relicenced to GPLv3.

                            So obviously GPLv2 without the 'or later' clause is incompatible with GPLv3, as it can't be relicenced to GPLv3.

                            Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
                            My original complaint was that the FSF claim their licenses are for freedom but they're far too restrictive.
                            I disagree with FSF's propagande use of the word 'freedom' to describe what is in reality rights, in this case end user rights. I don't see anything 'too restrictive' with them though, but that's up to each and every one to decide for themselves. To me it's a great tit-for-tat licence, and given it's the most popular open source licence I'm not alone. At the end of the day it's all up to the code author/owner to decide upon the licence, it's their code.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                              How could that be? They licenced under GPLv2, just like with any other licence, unless you (as in code author) or the licence specifically allow for re-licencing then there is no 'later down the road'.
                              Simple. I write some code, and in my copyright header I write GPL v2 and forget to write "or later" (or wasn't aware that it's recommended). 3 years down the track, there's a new GPL version and a project that uses it and that project can no longer use my code. Even if I wanted to relicense with "or later" at the request of that project, I can't do so without approval of every single contributor to my code.


                              Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                              Because the GPL licences are reciprocal, meaning that code which includes GPL licenced code needs to be available under that same (or compatible) licence, that's the whole point of the GPL licence. Now since GPLv2 and GPLv3 are different licences with different conditions, a project licenced under GPLv2 will be (as it is reciprocal) incompatible with GPLv3 (which is also reciprocal), now to limit the fragmentation problems the introduction of new GPL versions can cause (like with GPLv2 and GPLv3) there is the 'or later' clause which makes sure that you can combine source code under different GPL licences.

                              Again, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are different licences, they are not compatible, a piece of GPLv2 code with the 'or later' clause is only compatible with GPLv3 because it allows itself to be relicenced to GPLv3.

                              So obviously GPLv2 without the 'or later' clause is incompatible with GPLv3, as it can't be relicenced to GPLv3.
                              I wasn't asking for a technical explanation of what makes them incompatible, I thought we already agreed they were incompatible.

                              I was wondering why the FSF designed licenses that aren't compatible. For example, why shouldn't I be allowed to mix GPLv2 code with GPLv3 code and have them licensed separately? A company like TiVo would be allowed to use the GPLv2 code from my source tree much as they would be allowed to by getting it from upstream just as before. They'd be unable to use the GPLv3 code from my source tree much as they would not be allowed to from an upstream source. The end user will still be allowed to get the source and modify for their own use if they see fit, so no freedoms are revoked there. The only purpose of this restriction of freedom (particularly of the developer) is to give FSF leverage in their philosophical agenda.


                              Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                              I disagree with FSF's propagande use of the word 'freedom' to describe what is in reality rights, in this case end user rights. I don't see anything 'too restrictive' with them though, but that's up to each and every one to decide for themselves. To me it's a great tit-for-tat licence, and given it's the most popular open source licence I'm not alone. At the end of the day it's all up to the code author/owner to decide upon the licence, it's their code.
                              From an end user perspective, I agree with you. From a developer perspective, it's quite restrictive.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
                                write GPL v2 and forget to write "or later"
                                How could you 'forget' to write 'or later' if you explicitly wanted to allow re-licencing to later versions of a licence? That makes no sense.

                                Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
                                For example, why shouldn't I be allowed to mix GPLv2 code with GPLv3 code and have them licensed separately?
                                Because then you would have to forego the repriprocal nature of GPL which only allows mixing GPL with compatible licences (as in licences that doesn't change the conditions of whichever GPL licence being used), GPLv2 and GPLv3 are not compatible licences since they affect eachothers conditions.

                                Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
                                A company like TiVo would be allowed to use the GPLv2 code from my source tree much as they would be allowed to by getting it from upstream just as before. They'd be unable to use the GPLv3 code from my source tree much as they would not be allowed to from an upstream source.
                                I'm not following, maybe I'm too tired...

                                Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
                                The end user will still be allowed to get the source and modify for their own use if they see fit, so no freedoms are revoked there.
                                The freedom in question is to be able to run the code on the machine it was intended, this is what Tivo disallowed, they only allowed code signed by Tivo to run on the Tivo, not code modified by the end user, this is what the anti-Tivoization clause in GPLv3 fixed.

                                Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
                                From an end user perspective, I agree with you. From a developer perspective, it's quite restrictive.
                                But you see the developer is also an end user. If I as a developer release my code under GPL, and someone else uses my code and enhances/fixes/modifies my code, I am then as an end user (assuming of course that he/she who modified it distributes code containing those changes) entitled to the source code of those modifications to my original code. Hence a tit-for-tat which certainly works great for developers as long as they do not want to keep 'their' modifications proprietary. This is the whole basis of the great cooperative development of Linux for example.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X