FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

[GreatEmerald]

It seems that a lot of people are putting words in the mouths of proprietary developers and open source developers. If I comply with the terms of the licenses (I do), I don't see what the problem is. My company won't allow me to open source our code (we have nothing to gain by doing so), but my boss was happy to employ (part-time) our placement student through his final year to develop an extension to one of the LGPL libraries that we use.

There is always something to gain by opening the source. As a matter of fact, one of the objectives of GPL is to make sure it is the case. However, whether or not it makes sense to open the source depends on the program in question.

[ворот93]

Please understand ... if you write your own code, it is your code. You may license it however you please, and there is absolutely no problem with this. If you include some LGPL libraries to help, that too is fine, because LGPL libraries explicitly allow you to do this. All is fine and good with that.

The only problem is when a developer takes GPL code and tries to make a derivative program using that code and then make that derivative program closed source. That is the no-no. The copyright owners of the GPL'd code have expressly forbidden that ... the GPL code is meant for the freedom of the end users, not for them to get ripped off by some downstream proprietary developer sponging of the efforts of the original GPL code authors.

What you and your company is doing is nothing like that ... you are writing your own code and using LGPL libraries in a way that they were intended to be used. I am sure everyone would join me in wishing you every success (even if we ourselves would not be interested in using yor code or your company's proprietary product).

And FSF has not written a single line of code for LibreDWG. FSF's stubborness = ripping off everyone else.

No one will hand over rights to FSF after this.

[hal2k1]

I'll admit to this point of what may be unforgivable: in my day job I write closed source code. I also use open-source libraries (LGPL/BSD) with that code. I also write my own open source programs (BSD-licensed).

It seems that a lot of people are putting words in the mouths of proprietary developers and open source developers. If I comply with the terms of the licenses (I do), I don't see what the problem is. My company won't allow me to open source our code (we have nothing to gain by doing so), but my boss was happy to employ (part-time) our placement student through his final year to develop an extension to one of the LGPL libraries that we use.

The way I see it, everybody wins in this situation: my company saves money, we financially support a student when money is likely to be tight (and hold a job open for him when he's done) and the LGPL library gets expanded. I don't see how anything we're doing is bad.

Please understand ... if you write your own code, it is your code. You may license it however you please, and there is absolutely no problem with this. If you include some LGPL libraries to help, that too is fine, because LGPL libraries explicitly allow you to do this. All is fine and good with that.

The only problem is when a developer takes GPL code and tries to make a derivative program using that code and then make that derivative program closed source. That is the no-no. The copyright owners of the GPL'd code have expressly forbidden that ... the GPL code is meant for the freedom of the end users, not for them to get ripped off by some downstream proprietary developer sponging of the efforts of the original GPL code authors.

What you and your company is doing is nothing like that ... you are writing your own code and using LGPL libraries in a way that they were intended to be used. I am sure everyone would join me in wishing you every success (even if we ourselves would not be interested in using yor code or your company's proprietary product).

[ворот93]

Now you're talking out your your ass

Protecting against tivoisation and patents is important, even Linus knows that, and he would gladly port Linux to GPL3 if not for those few tens of thousands of people he'd have to contact about the matter first.

Besides, the readline library is GPL, not LGPL for the exact same reason: because there are no proprietary libraries that do the same, so that truly Free software could benefit from the advantage given by ability to use those libraries. It's all in the FSF FAQ, ffs!

Please provide a proof that Linus said that. IIRC he said that he does not give a fuck HOW software is used and it is not up to us to judge installation.

[archibald]

I'll admit to this point of what may be unforgivable: in my day job I write closed source code. I also use open-source libraries (LGPL/BSD) with that code. I also write my own open source programs (BSD-licensed).

It seems that a lot of people are putting words in the mouths of proprietary developers and open source developers. If I comply with the terms of the licenses (I do), I don't see what the problem is. My company won't allow me to open source our code (we have nothing to gain by doing so), but my boss was happy to employ (part-time) our placement student through his final year to develop an extension to one of the LGPL libraries that we use.

The way I see it, everybody wins in this situation: my company saves money, we financially support a student when money is likely to be tight (and hold a job open for him when he's done) and the LGPL library gets expanded. I don't see how anything we're doing is bad.

[hal2k1]

Devs of closed source front-end will not open their code for the sake of using a GPL library, and FOSS gains nothing. If they use a LGPL library, they will contribute back to it. Which is arguably better, when the Libre-Software product is not the front-end, but that damn library.

FOSS simply doesn't want closed-source anything. If you want to write closed source and charge end users for it ... go away, FOSS wants nothing from you and you may not use FOSS's code.

FOSS is open software developed by and for its own community of users. That community can, and does, include commercial companies (typically companies that do not sell closed source code as their product). Closed developers can go **** themselves.

[BSD SUCKS DICKS]

BSDs Wastes Away Their SHITTY LITTLE LIVES

[tomato]

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.

Now you're talking out your your ass

Protecting against tivoisation and patents is important, even Linus knows that, and he would gladly port Linux to GPL3 if not for those few tens of thousands of people he'd have to contact about the matter first.

Besides, the readline library is GPL, not LGPL for the exact same reason: because there are no proprietary libraries that do the same, so that truly Free software could benefit from the advantage given by ability to use those libraries. It's all in the FSF FAQ, ffs!

[erendorn]

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.

Closed-source developers are in a different mindset, working on their things on their terms.

Libre-Software is not a war against removing closed source alternatives. If it's a war, it's for providing open source alternatives.

Devs of closed source front-end will not open their code for the sake of using a GPL library, and FOSS gains nothing. If they use a LGPL library, they will contribute back to it. Which is arguably better, when the Libre-Software product is not the front-end, but that damn library.

[hal2k1]

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/linux-foundation-forms-automotive-grade-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.