Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

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

  • hal2k1
    replied
    Originally posted by Vax456 View Post
    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.
    The GPL license is not meant to be attractive for developers. You have a fundamental misconception here. The GPL license is inteded to give freedom to end users, and most decidedly not to make it attractive to closed source developers to exploit the code.

    Here, enlighten yourself, and see what it says:
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

    “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.
    There is not a single word about freedoms or benefits for developers. When the original author writes code and places it under the GPL, his/her intent is that the code will forever retain the freedoms for users to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the code.

    Commercial developers are most decidedly not welcome.

    However, this does not mean that GPL code has no commercial utility. It just means that one cannot use the code as a closed secret meant to provide a commercial advantage over another party. This does not, however, prevent open collaboration amongst companies whose product is not software.

    Like so:
    http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/20/l...ade-workgroup/

    The Linux Foundation sees it differently and wants our cars to embrace the same notions of common roots and open code that we'd find in an Ubuntu box. Its newly-formed Automotive Grade Linux Workgroup is transforming Tizen into a reference platform that car designers can use for the center stack, or even the instrument cluster. The promise is to both optimize a Linux variant for cars and provide the same kind of years-long support that we'd expect for the drivetrain. Technology heavy-hitters like Intel, Harman, NVIDIA, Samsung and TI form the core of the group, although there are already automakers who've signaled their intentions: Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan and Toyota are all part of the initial membership.
    As long as the code stays open, under the GPL, and any manufacturer at all can use it, then these companies, whose products for sale are not the code itself, can save enormous costs by collaborating on software development and sharing the costs.

    That is the idea ... keep the code open, collaborate to share the costs, produce quality open code at the lowest cost possible, and everybody benefits (not just developers).

    This economic relationship, which involves co-operation and collaboration to reduce costs, is called a consumer's co-operative, by the way.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_cooperative

    Consumer cooperatives are enterprises owned by consumers and managed democratically which aim at fulfilling the needs and aspirations of their members. They operate within the market system, independently of the state, as a form of mutual aid, oriented toward service rather than pecuniary profit.
    Last edited by hal2k1; 01-25-2013, 05:47 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • oliver
    replied
    Originally posted by Vax456 View Post
    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.
    And that is the whole point, closed-source developers are in the wrong mindset, working on the wrong things on wrong terms.

    Remember what Libre-Software is all about? Not making life easier for closed source developers, who want to use this easy library/tool just so that they don't have to pay for it.

    Originally posted by Vax456 View Post
    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.
    I'll almost agree with you there. Libraries that are important for standards should be LGPL. Think an ogg-decoder or mkv reader. Why? Isn't it going against freedom? Yes, but, it also helps promote open formats. By doing so, even closed-source developers can easily integrate support for said formats and that is a big win.

    Leave a comment:


  • staalmannen
    replied
    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.
    The BSD licensed libedit/editline works pretty well as readline replacement though

    http://www.thrysoee.dk/editline/

    Leave a comment:


  • a user
    replied
    Originally posted by Nuc!eoN View Post
    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?).
    this post is a shame. actually people are so short sighted and forget history that they just jump on biased headlines and make unaccaptable comparision with nazis.

    use your brain and inform yourself befor you start judging other and calling them "xxx-nazis".
    this is unbelievable!

    Leave a comment:


  • hal2k1
    replied
    Originally posted by Nuc!eoN View Post
    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?).
    You make a fundamental error in your assumptions here. The GPL is NOT about freedom for developers, it is about freedom for users of the software, and keeping it free (i.e. preventing any downstream developers from making a closed commercial derivative).

    It is because you make this mistake concerning exactly whose freedom the GPL is aimed at keeping is why you make this error of judgement about "GPL nazis to struggle about politics". If the original authors of the software had intended to give later developers freedom to do what they wanted, the original code would not have been licensed under the GPL in the first place, but rather some other license such as BSD. No, the original authors wanted to keep the code forever free and open, for the maximum ongoing benefit of the end users. It is not meant to be a free smorgasboard of code for downstream developers to feast upon.

    Here is a link which might make this clearer for you:
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

    “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.
    The fact that you made this mistake about exactly who was supposed to have the freedoms under the GPL, and you are complaining now about the GPL license of this software and how it prevents developers now from doing whatever they want, is actually a good testament to just how effective the GPL license is at keeping the freedom for end users, which after all is the actual intent of the GPL license.
    Last edited by hal2k1; 01-25-2013, 03:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • XorEaxEax
    replied
    Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
    Talk to a copyright lawyer, you'll find that you are wrong. This is one area where Linus Torvalds is correct, the removal of "or later" from the license header does jack shit to license compatibility.
    What are you talking about? Are you saying Linus has said that him removing 'or later' from GPLv2 has no effect on licence compability? Can you please show me this statement? I know he has specifically stated that he removed the 'or later' because he found the GPLv2 to be perfect, why would he remove the 'or later' if he says it has no effect? Seriously, is this another one of your brainfarts caused by your feverish trolling?

    Leave a comment:


  • XorEaxEax
    replied
    Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
    It just means that if you want to do something that the GPLv2 allows that the GPLv3 doesn't, you can only use the components that are GPLv2. LGPL allows linking against proprietary applications, why shouldn't GPLv3 allow linking against GPLv2?
    Because LGPL is not reciprocal, it does not make any requirements outside of the LGPL licenced code, GPL on the other hand can't be used together with code licenced in a manner that collides with the conditions of the GPL licence, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are therefore incompatible as their conditions collide, it doesn't matter if they share the same origin or not, they are different licences.

    Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
    It'd be a weird situation where TiVo only code signed GPLv2 components preventing modifications to that but allowing GPLv3 components to be modified, but even if that happened it still wouldn't be violating the GPLv3 on the GPLv3 components nor will it be violating the GPLv2 on the GPLv2 components.
    Again not sure if I follow (tired), but here goes: Tivo only allowed code signed by Tivo to run on the Tivo, the reason they could do this was because GPLv2 had no condition making sure that the end users would be able to sign code so that it could run on a device which only accepted signed code. They could get the source code, modify it, but not run that modified code on the Tivo as Tivo could block this through code signing. GPLv3 changed this so that Tivo if using GPLv3 licenced code, would have to allow the end user the right to run modified code on the Tivo, in other words had Tivo used GPLv3 licenced code they would have to allow end users the ability to sign their own code so that the Tivo could run it.

    Originally posted by gigaplex View Post
    In that situation where it's just sharing modifications on a project the GPL works and works very well. However, the restrictions come in when a developer wants to add a feature by reusing an existing library and finding that the "free/open source" license is incompatible due to philosophical differences.
    Well, then the 'other' licence is no less 'incompatible' than GPL is, BSD/MIT for instance are GPL compatible licences as they do not enforce any contradictionaty terms for use, but there are of course other licences which are, like CDDL MSPL which are pretty much designed to be GPL incompatible.

    My personal preference regarding licences are BSD/MIT/LGPL for component/framework/library code, GPL for 'complete' projects, but as always that is just a subjective preference, it's no more the 'truth' than any other preference out there.

    Leave a comment:


  • yogi_berra
    replied
    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.
    Talk to a copyright lawyer, you'll find that you are wrong. This is one area where Linus Torvalds is correct, the removal of "or later" from the license header does jack shit to license compatibility.

    Leave a comment:


  • gigaplex
    replied
    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    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.
    I was describing a situation that a) either a developer didn't explicitly want to allow relicensing or b) didn't know about the concept as they were rookies who jumped on the GPL bandwagon or c) simply that they assumed it was implied by the GPL and that it wasn't required to explicitly state it (I got that impression from you in your original post). I doubt this is the case for the linked article, it was more of a hypothetical situation where this issue can crop up.

    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    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.

    I'm not following, maybe I'm too tired...
    It doesn't have to forego the reciprocal nature. If an app is GPLv2 and it relies on a GPLv3 library, using/distributing that app under GPLv2 conditions doesn't prevent you using/distributing the library under GPLv3 conditions. It just means that if you want to do something that the GPLv2 allows that the GPLv3 doesn't, you can only use the components that are GPLv2. LGPL allows linking against proprietary applications, why shouldn't GPLv3 allow linking against GPLv2?


    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    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.
    If the GPLv3 component was not violating the GPLv3 conditions then the user will still be able to run their modifications as intended. It'd be a weird situation where TiVo only code signed GPLv2 components preventing modifications to that but allowing GPLv3 components to be modified, but even if that happened it still wouldn't be violating the GPLv3 on the GPLv3 components nor will it be violating the GPLv2 on the GPLv2 components.


    Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    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.
    In that situation where it's just sharing modifications on a project the GPL works and works very well. However, the restrictions come in when a developer wants to add a feature by reusing an existing library and finding that the "free/open source" license is incompatible due to philosophical differences.

    Leave a comment:


  • XorEaxEax
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X