Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

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

  • FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

    Phoronix: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

    There's a new situation concerning another high-priority Free Software Foundation project and the unwillingness by Richard Stallman and the FSF to cooperate with real-world free software developers...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI4Mjc

  • #2
    Wow

    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      I am with Stallman on this one, software should be "GPL3+ and later".
      The only difference between GPL2 and GPL3 is tivization exploit fix - a fix to license exploit that allowed to close down the platform, preventing GPL2 freedoms to be used anyway.

      Any developer that prefers "GPL2" over "GPL3" essentially needs that exploit and wants to produce closed source product.

      In this case, these people should really use BSD license instead.

      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
      Some of these silly decisions (by RMS, FSF and the GNU project) really harm free software.
      It is vice versa.
      People that use freedom granting license refuse to actually provide these freedoms, because their scheme is based on exploitation of the older version of the license.
      Last edited by brosis; 01-24-2013, 10:23 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        OpenCASCADE is not GPL licensed. BTW http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawik...?title=Licence

        Comment


        • #5
          And why can not "Open Cascade and Coin3D" move to GPL v3?

          Calling only one party evil where both behave the same is PURE hypocrysy

          And why on earth whould FSF would want to use GPL version TWO, when there is already GPL version THREE ?????????
          Come one. FSF did finalized GPL v3 BECAUSE they think its BETTER than GPLv2.

          Ofc. such frictions do not progress FLOSS case, but they are unavoidable. (I'm sure same friction did existed when FSF freshly introducted GPLv2)

          Oh, there is also patent disarming clause. That may be reason why projects backed by corporation DO NOT WANT to adopt GPLv3. But then FSF is not The Evil One, in such situation

          Comment


          • #6
            These are more examples of where the strictness of GPL is actually preventing free software, while the clauses are designed to ensure freedom. GPL could actually hurt it's own cause.

            I'm confident that a GPL which allows more crosslicensing would allow more free software, and it would allow more companies to start freeing their software (as a multiple step process).

            Comment


            • #7
              I support it being the GPLv3...

              And some program called GRASS? http://grass.osgeo.org/
              It's likely the most used program mentioned in this article.

              "GRASS GIS, commonly referred to as GRASS (Geographic Resources Analysis Support System), is a free Geographic Information System (GIS) software used for geospatial data management and analysis, image processing, graphics/maps production, spatial modeling, and visualization. GRASS GIS is currently used in academic and commercial settings around the world, as well as by many governmental agencies and environmental consulting companies."

              It's the premier open source GIS solution, originally developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and now used by many governments around the world..

              Comment


              • #8
                Another phoronix article full of credibility...

                Comment


                • #9
                  "Unless the Free Software Foundation becomes more accomodating of these open-source developers"

                  That's the point, the FSF cares about _free_ software, not open-source developers. Until you realize the distinction, you'll keep spitting out such silly nonsense.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This is a shame. Open Source licences should support free software, not restrict it(s developers).
                    Unfortunately it's typical for GPL nazis to struggle about politics instead of just getting their things done (Hurd?).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Nuc!eoN View Post
                      This is a shame. Open Source licences should support free software
                      It's a Free Software License, not an "Open Source" License.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        > This is a shame. Open Source licences should support free software, not restrict it(s developers).

                        Yes, but _Free_ software licenses, like the GPL, support free software.

                        I do not mean to sound impolite, but please educate yourself a bit on the topic before commenting:

                        http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-s...the-point.html

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by pholklore View Post
                          > This is a shame. Open Source licences should support free software, not restrict it(s developers).

                          Yes, but _Free_ software licenses, like the GPL, support free software.

                          I do not mean to sound impolite, but please educate yourself a bit on the topic before commenting:

                          http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-s...the-point.html
                          Only religious wackos are concerned by this stuff. For Stallman and the like arguing is more important than getting things done. That's why GNU Hurd is dead in the water and GNU product = slow as shit.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
                            Only religious wackos are concerned by this stuff. For Stallman and the like arguing is more important than getting things done.
                            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.
                            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.

                            Originally posted by ворот93 View Post
                            GNU Hurd is dead in the water and GNU product = slow as shit.
                            FUD, plain and simple.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              There should be no problem

                              The FSF wants to enforce the use of GPL licenses by saying that anything using GPL licensed software is a derived work, but that's not true. I'm a proponent of the FSF and GPL licenses but I don't like the way this is handled. LibreCAD should simply use that library, both software projects can use their own licenses since one isn't a derived work of the other.

                              I recommend reading http://www.law.washington.edu/lta/sw...erivative.html for a better understanding of what a derived work is for law. The derived work concept isn't new to computers, and it isn't being redefined by the FSF, it's an old law concept. Linus Torvalds already expressed those ideas some time ago, even proposing the LGPL wasn't necessary at all since the GPL already allowed the same uses.

                              I think the FSF is promoting some FUD around it to try to force anyone to use the newest GPL license, but I think they're sometimes getting the opposite effect. The FSF claim that any use case is a derived work has never been proved in court and it seems it will never be.

                              I'm not a lawyer, but I'm proposing these facts should be checked and stop blindly trusting anything the FSF says, even if they say it for our own good.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X