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...
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.
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.
It is vice versa.
Originally Posted by uid313
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 at 10:23 AM.
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
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).
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..
Another phoronix article full of credibility...
"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.
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?).