Slashdot Mirror
Qt Upgrades From LGPLv2.1 to LGPLv3
Digia has announced that existing Qt modules will now be covered under the LGPLv3 in addition to the LGPLv2.1, GPLv3, and the enterprise (proprietary) license. New modules will be dropping LGPLv2.1 and GPLv3+ and be released under the LGPLv3 and GPLv2+ instead. This should be a good move: new Qt modules will be Apache license compatible, LGPLv3 code can trivially be converted to GPLv3, and Digia is even releasing a few modules it intended to make proprietary as Free Software. The KDE Free Qt Foundation is on board. The move was made because of device vendors exploiting a loophole in the GPLv2/LGPLv2.1 that denied users the right to modify Qt or write their own applications. Digia has some self-interest as well, since those vendors were exploiting the tivoization loophole to avoid buying enterprise licenses. From the announcement:
We also consider locked-down consumer devices using the LGPL’ed version of Qt to be harmful for the Qt ecosystem. ... Because of this, we are now adding LGPL v3 as a licensing option to Qt 5.4 in addition to LGPL v2.1. All modules that are part of Qt 5.3 are currently released under LGPL v2.1, GPL v3 and the commercial license. Starting with Qt 5.4, they will be released under LGPL v2.1, LGPL v3 and the commercial license. ... In Qt 5.4, the new Qt WebEngine module will be released under LGPL v3 in the open source version and under a LGPLv2.1/commercial combination for Qt Enterprise customers. ...
Adding LGPLv3 will also allow us to release a few other add-ons that Digia before intended to make available solely under the enterprise license. ... The first module, called Qt Canvas3D, will give us full WebGL support inside Qt Quick. ... The second module is a lightweight WebView module ... There is a final add-on that will get released under LGPL v3. This module will give native look and feel to the Qt Quick Controls on Android. This module can’t be released under LGPL v2.1, as it has to use code that is licensed under Apache 2.0, a license that is incompatible with LGPL v2.1, but compatible with LGPL v3.
Adding LGPLv3 will also allow us to release a few other add-ons that Digia before intended to make available solely under the enterprise license. ... The first module, called Qt Canvas3D, will give us full WebGL support inside Qt Quick. ... The second module is a lightweight WebView module ... There is a final add-on that will get released under LGPL v3. This module will give native look and feel to the Qt Quick Controls on Android. This module can’t be released under LGPL v2.1, as it has to use code that is licensed under Apache 2.0, a license that is incompatible with LGPL v2.1, but compatible with LGPL v3.
Good for you, Apple!
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Licensing is more complex than program itself. Everybody's getting sucked in to the lawyers' game.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Downgrades you mean.
So Digia doesn't mind if vendors "deny users the right to modify Qt or write their own applications," as long as those vendors pay Digia their tithe.
Doesn't it require consent from all the people who have contributed in the past?
Does anyone get the feeling that the licensing requirements are more complex than the code itself?
If we are to truly understand all of the legal rules we are subject too, we must start training our children from birth. We must spend two hours every day reading them from the IRS code, health care mandate rules, EULA's, court cases and even international law.
Once I thought "we are endowed by our creator..."
I'm on board with OSS. But I don't think it goes far enough. The right to modify the code you run is a good one. But I am calling for OSS licenses to pick up another clause, the Zero-Kill clause, where in using the software in any weapons platform (be it sniper rifles or predator drones) is forbidden. People should have the right to not fear being killed by open source software.
Additionally, I am calling for another clause to protect human rights. People should be free from fear that OSS will be used to restrict their freedoms in other ways. This includes forbidding use of the software for censorship or oppression.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I'm on board with OSS. But I don't think it goes far enough. The right to modify the code you run is a good one. But I am calling for OSS licenses to pick up another clause, the Zero-Kill clause, where in using the software in any weapons platform (be it sniper rifles or predator drones) is forbidden. People should have the right to not fear being killed by open source software.
Additionally, I am calling for another clause to protect human rights. People should be free from fear that OSS will be used to restrict their freedoms in other ways. This includes forbidding use of the software for censorship or oppression.
Both of those clauses would be incompatible with the definition of open source, especially regarding no discrimination against fields of endeavor. You're of course free to create and use such license, but keep in mind that it won't be considered open source and that a lot of people won't be able to use it.
I share your feelings, but you gotta realize such a clause would be unenforceable. Right now you can get detained forever without due process, how do you expect to check something that's buried deep into secrecy? Because you know, "national security", and terrorists. Sure.
By the way, I see you've been down modded already. Gotta love the warmongers and totalitarists.
Yes. Some people do. They are people who have no understanding of either the licenses or the code.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
You can make your own license any time you want.
However, i don't share your concerns and likely would avoid your license or any with those provisions in them. If i wanted my code to only be used in certain ways, i would keep it propriatary and use specific licenses instead of pretending it was free.
If that is so, then I find it abhorrent that the OSS movement prioritizes the freedoms of killing, censorship and persecution above the right to life and live.
So what you're saying is we could have an OSS licensed SkyNet? "It's ok because it's GPL!" Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Both of those clauses would be incompatible with the definition of open source, especially regarding no discrimination against fields of endeavor. You're of course free to create and use such license, but keep in mind that it won't be considered open source and that a lot of people won't be able to use it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://blog.nexusuk.org
It's not a popularity contest. It's about our legacy as human beings and as open source is inherently collective, our collective coding effort being a moral and just one.
While I would like the license to be popular, only in so much that I can be assured that the software is being used to advance humanity, not to stifle it. As well as contributors to the projects can rest assured the code they submit would never be used against themselves or others in an immoral fashion.
You, of course, are free to choose an immoral license.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
What's your opinion on a license that restricts abortion clinics or anti-abortion activists from using the software? Some people consider that killing. It's slippery slope if you start restricting specific use cases based on your own personal agenda.
I was losing sleep over this.
Uh, WAKE UP dude! They just changed the license on Qt!!!
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Who gets to decide whether or not some specific use is a "weapons platform", "human rights" violation, or "oppression"? I highly doubt that many developers want to spend all their time dealing with it, and courts probably won't want to deal with such a vague contract.
The GPL wasn't designed with freedoms of the developer/company in mind; it was developed with freedoms of the client/user in mind. RMS started the whole thing partially because of his experience with a printer that the company refused to give drivers so he could make it work on his computer (see the section A Stark Moral Choice).
GPL protects the user's right to do what they want with the software once they've received it (either paid for it, or were given it for free - most software these days is free, but the GPL allows the developer to sell it too). GPLv3 was written when it was realized that a loophole was being used to prevent the owner of the device from changing out the software on the device -- a device the owner paid for and of course now owns! How ridiculous to let a company tell you that you are not allowed to tinker/update the thing you now own. So the "TiVoization" clause was added to prevent that in the future.
The GPL is more of a developer's promise that, once you have paid for the software (even if the price was $0), you will be given complete freedom to use the software as you see fit and the developer/seller will not interfere. That promise is made stronger legally with v3.
Um what?
I'm on a mobile team and iOS and Android are a lot less similar than you would think. There are few constructs shared between the two. This isn't Qt's problem.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
That would be fine. If I imposed such a restriction, someone can come along and invent separate software a less restrictive license, which is completely within their right.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Didn't a group already make such a license.
I feel it was Cult of the Dead Cow (with peekabooty maybe), or the people behind Freenet or some such, quite a while ago.
It was around the timeframe of those projects being new, I read about it here as a matter of fact.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
If that is so, then I find it abhorrent that the OSS movement prioritizes the freedoms of killing, censorship and persecution above the right to life and live.
What drugs are you on really? You make as much sense as saying that because this knife didn't come with an EULA not to behead unbelievers the manufacturer supports what the Islamic State is doing in Iraq/Syria. I've never to my knowledge bought or owned anything that has a political agenda as condition for use and newer will. I do care how they were produced (no child labor, animal testing, destroying the rain forest, social dumping or so on) but I'd never buy a car that had the gall to tell me where I could and couldn't drive in the EULA. So are you nuts, a troll or just trying to kill OSS? Because you make RMS look pragmatic.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Found it
http://www.hacktivismo.com/abo...
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Someone did, that less restrictive license is called GPL because things were going out of control.
I'm all for fighting evil, but historical evidence show that this is the wrong way.
The funny thing here is that Digia is still going to support Tivoization, but customers will have to pay for it! I suppose that's better than letting hardware manufacturers Tivoize their hardware for free, but this is the first time I have ever seen anyone upgrade their GPL license simply to force customers to pay more. It seems wrong somehow...
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
Furthermore, many countries allow violating copyright for national security, so it's not even illegal.
The problem is that Richard Stallman is a fucking egocentric hypocrite and the gpl contract should be voided. If a company took a look at how the gpl code worked and then came up with a brand new algorithm with the same results as the gpl it would still be considered gpl code which is ridiculous. Linux has no unix code(different algorithms but same results) but it looks like unix and it runs like unix, wouldn't this be a violation of unix patents?
It's not a popularity contest.
You missed the point. You can make such a license if you like, indeed many people have made them. But it is a popularity contest in that unless a significant number of people agree with your priorities and therefore choose to adopt your license, you won't have accomplished anything.
And, of course, the GP disagrees with your priorities and wouldn't use your license. I see both sides, but I think I'd probably shy away from a license with such vague and potentially far-reaching restrictions.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Why is the parent post modded Funny? It's not Funny. It might be considered unrealistic, idealistic or a few other things, but Funny? No. I must say I sympathize with the notion of clearly stating that as a requirement for use/derivation, a given piece of code may not be used to deliberately cause harm to others, even if it's not easy (or even possible) to enforce.
I can see why certain people frown at the thought. Those people are part of the problem.
If its not an improvement?
I don't consider weapons to be inherently immoral. The use of weapons does bring up moral questions real fast, but sometimes the best way to enforce the peace is to have a weapon. Sometimes the best counter to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, although not nearly as often as the NRA apparently believes.
Look, you may be a pacifist, which is a perfectly respectable philosophical opinion, if not one I share. (If you're not, then you really shouldn't object to weapons just because they're weapons.) Lots of people aren't pacifists in a strong sense. Lots of people have other philosophies or religions, which may forbid other things.
Should OSS be required to fail to work on days holy to various religions? It's really about as sensible as a no-weapons clause: it would satisfy a small minority of people with their own ethics.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
My son's school district had a no-weapons policy, and they defined a weapon as anything that might be used to harm another.
Therefore, I was technically in violation every time I entered a school with my shoelaces, pens, keys, etc. I decided this wasn't a useful definition.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I would counter with morality is not religion. And religion is not morality.
The first tier of morality, as far as the moral operable software license is concerned, it is akin to Asimov's Laws of Robotics. Since robotics will most likely consist of a software component, the software itself should be covered by a license with morality clause.
I would then say the second tier is to not cause non-lethal suffering. This would include things like torture (physical), torture (mental), causing injury, disease and malnutrition.
The third and final tier would be socioeconomic suffering. It would not create artificially limiting factors when those factors are not a choice. (Sex, race, etc)
After that, there is plenty of potential for immoral software. The goal isn't to create perfectly moral software (hell it's hard enough to make software that work as intended regardless of morality) but it is to assure developers and users that the software will only be used to advance humanity in the broad sense.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
So you're saying that your specific sense of morality should be generally accepted? Many people have religious beliefs, and they generally influence their morality. It's no stranger than taking one's morality from a set of rules thought up by a science fiction writer and largely used to construct interesting logical puzzles. Moreover, the rules applied to the robots, not the use people made of them, and the robot brains were nothing like anything I've seen or read about in real life.
Sometimes, also, people with weapons cause suffering and need to be stopped by other people with weapons. An Asimovian robot brain in charge of US strategy for WWII would simply have burned out, as both action and inaction would cause large numbers of humans to die. I do not consider weapons to be inherently good or evil, and believe that my moral opinion is as valid as yours. Indeed, I suspect it's considerably more widespread.
So, while I respect your morality, I see absolutely no reason it should govern F/OS software licenses in general.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
We're not going to come to any absolute decision or agreement. Which is fine. The world and morals aren't experienced in terms of absolutes.
It depends on what "weapon" means. An amalgamation of steel resembling an AK-47 is a weapon. Heck even a chunk of iron ore is a weapon. It's not the weapon that is bad it is the use. And weapons and software are used in both moral and amoral contexts. It's not the lines of code or parts of the machine. It becomes moral only when a person picks it up and carries out their intent.
By applying a morality clause, I limit the intents that the software can be used in. Importantly, I create a barrier to entry as someone would have to recreate the software to accomplish an intent. This additional effort is then is a signal of software with a malicious intent. It would allow us to ask the questions of "Why can't this software use a moral license?" Maybe it is decided that the intent is valid, and immoral software should be used because the intent is that important. But we would know it. The current state of OSS licenses makes no distinction.
Finally, as you point out "people with weapons cause suffering and need to be stopped by other people with weapons". The US has supported various rebel groups who were allies, only to have them turn around and become enemies or terrorist groups. What gets accomplished there is just killing... on both sides. One has to question if these behaviors that lead to killing on both sides is a smart idea. The idea here are allegiances are fleeting, death is permanent.
Fundamentally, I want my work or portion of my work to be used in killing someone. I'm sure there are others. And I'm not entirely a pacifist. I just want to limit the applications of my open source work to moral causes.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
It was my understanding that the LGPL was created so that applications could link against them without needing to open source themselves. So the LGPL v3 is going to put a nail into mobile developers' coffins and punish them for the actions of the hardware they develop for? Obviously, the ability to swap out dynamic libraries easily on mobile systems is not going to change, and since LGPL v3 was created to stop that, does that mean that the only choice as developers is to stop using LGPL v3 libraries, or basically use GPL v3 instead? Reading over the text of the LGPL is about as useful as trying to communicate in English with a donkey, but which part of it actually closes this loophole?