Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

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

  • prokoudine
    replied
    Originally posted by thalaric View Post
    Rewriting is *always* an option.
    In a perfect world where there's no pain, sorrow and tons of lousy licensed code? Sure. In the real world? Unlikely.

    Originally posted by thalaric View Post
    What they should be doing now is separating the portions out that are gpl2 only into separate files and dual license the rest to gpl 2 and 3. Only accept contributions with the dual license going forward. Deprecate the code and libraries that use gpl2.
    Again, in the real world there is nothing you can use in place of Open CASCADE, and writing a substitude is unrealistic. Would you like to prove me wrong?

    Leave a comment:


  • energyman
    replied
    Gplv3 is less free than GPLv2. Plus overly complex. And while the v2 has been proven by courts, GPLv3 has not.

    So there are good reasons not to use GPLv3.

    Leave a comment:


  • thalaric
    replied
    Originally posted by prokoudine View Post
    2) isn't an option for FreeCAD and hardly an option for LibreCAD (also explained)
    Rewriting is *always* an option. The blog doesn't make it clear how much of the code can't be relicensed, but I assume it's a substantial amount. What they should be doing now is separating the portions out that are gpl2 only into separate files and dual license the rest to gpl 2 and 3. Only accept contributions with the dual license going forward. Deprecate the code and libraries that use gpl2. When they finally excise it all, drop the gpl2 license. This should be done regardless of whether they ultimately choose to use LibreDWG.

    Of course they can't distribute it until they're done.
    Last edited by thalaric; 01-25-2013, 03:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • j2723
    replied
    Wow this is really sad, imagine the effort those devs put into their project . On top of that, they'll now have to solve this artificial problem...

    Leave a comment:


  • prokoudine
    replied
    Originally posted by thalaric View Post
    That's a problem for their project to deal with. They have three options, they can 1) do the legwork to find all of the past contributors and get them to relicense to the updated version; 2) rewrite all portions that can't be cleared; or 3) not use a growing body of open source code that is GPL3 or later.
    1) isn't an option, as thoroughly explained in the original article.
    2) isn't an option for FreeCAD and hardly an option for LibreCAD (also explained).
    3) is the reality.

    Leave a comment:


  • thalaric
    replied
    Originally posted by CFWhitman View Post
    The reason that the projects in question don't relicense under the GPL 3 is most likely because they don't have control of the copyright for all the code that they contain.
    That's a problem for their project to deal with. They have three options, they can 1) do the legwork to find all of the past contributors and get them to relicense to the updated version; 2) rewrite all portions that can't be cleared; or 3) not use a growing body of open source code that is GPL3 or later.

    They can also take a page from the BSD's playbook and whine about the existence of licenses with more protections built in, but that's really just an annoying execution of option 3.

    Leave a comment:


  • prokoudine
    replied
    @CFWhitman, it's not "probably", it's a fact

    Leave a comment:


  • CFWhitman
    replied
    Projects probably can't convert to GPL 3

    The reason that the projects in question don't relicense under the GPL 3 is most likely because they don't have control of the copyright for all the code that they contain. They can use it in a GPL 2 product to their hearts' content, but they probably don't have the option of relicensing all the code under the GPL 3. Of course, this issue is the reason that the FSF insists on having copyright control signed over to them for all the software that they accept stewardship of.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreatEmerald
    replied
    Originally posted by archibald View Post
    True, I wrote that too hastily. Past experience with customers has been that when we've allowed them to write scripts to configure some aspects of the system they have bombarded us with requests for support or to debug their code and explain why it isn't working. It got so bad that we were finding it quite hard to find the time to do actual development work.
    Hmm. You know, you could use that as an advantage. Open-source things, then when people want you to debug their code, offer them a support package, then hire a few people to work on it. That's how everyone would win.

    Leave a comment:


  • thalaric
    replied
    The entire purpose of the FSF is to encourage as many people as possible to use the GPL v3 and thereby protect as many users of software as possible from being abused by tivoization or patents. Given that, Michael, why the hell would FSF relicense their software to a license that can be abused by patents and Tivoized? I swear, people don't think this shit through before writing it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X