Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

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

  • hubick
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • greencopper
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • XorEaxEax
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • gigaplex
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • XorEaxEax
    replied
    Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
    *Which* GPL, though? This isn't an argument about the merits of GPL vs something else - it's about a GPL project being unable to use a GPL library because the two GPL versions aren't compatible.
    As stated, the GPL licences originating from the FSF are compatible, since they have the 'or later' clause. This was explicitly removed by Ribbonsoft thus creating a 'new' GPLv2 ONLY licence that has nothing to do with FSF.

    There's nothing 'wrong' with them doing this, everyone has the right to licence 'their' code as per 'their' wishes, however the problems generated by this choice as discussed in the article does not fall on FSF, as it is Ribbonsoft who chose to make their code GPLv2 ONLY and thus incompatible with later GPL versions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Delgarde
    replied
    Originally posted by brosis View Post
    Not many licenses are free as in Freedom, but GPL definately IS the one.
    So, if you step on Freedom in GPL, you trigger license violation. I don't think its hard to understand.
    *Which* GPL, though? This isn't an argument about the merits of GPL vs something else - it's about a GPL project being unable to use a GPL library because the two GPL versions aren't compatible.

    Leave a comment:


  • prokoudine
    replied
    Originally posted by pholklore View Post
    The mostly widely used version has the "or later" bit. Nobody's being punished. It was those (not the FSF) that chose to use GPLv2-without-or-later that explicitly chose to not make use of v3+ licensed code. It was a concious decision at the time, now they get to live with it. This is _not_ the FSF's fault, in any way possibly imaginable.
    LibreCAD team didn't choose GPLv2-only license. The inherited that from QCad. Would you like to actually read what you are discussing?

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by mendieta View Post
    Yes, for a long time, I even thought that LGPL stands for LibraryGPL (as opposed to Lesser).
    It was Library initially :

    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.0.html (library)
    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html (lesser)

    Leave a comment:


  • brosis
    replied
    Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
    Except in this case, it's *not* supporting free software - it's punishing them for sticking with the mostly widely used version of the FSF's own license.
    Licenses are designed to punish if you violate them. Every single of them.
    Maybe they should have used public domain license, if they did not desire protection against stripping of four freedoms.

    Also, "freedom for slaver" means "restriction for slave". "Restriction for slaver" means "freedom for slave".

    "Freedom to close source down anytime" means "restriction to open the software".

    "Freedom to open the software" means "restriction to close it down".

    Not many licenses are free as in Freedom, but GPL definately IS the one.
    So, if you step on Freedom in GPL, you trigger license violation. I don't think its hard to understand.

    Leave a comment:


  • pholklore
    replied
    Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
    Except in this case, it's *not* supporting free software - it's punishing them for sticking with the mostly widely used version of the FSF's own license.
    The mostly widely used version has the "or later" bit. Nobody's being punished. It was those (not the FSF) that chose to use GPLv2-without-or-later that explicitly chose to not make use of v3+ licensed code. It was a concious decision at the time, now they get to live with it. This is _not_ the FSF's fault, in any way possibly imaginable.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X