Slashdot Mirror
QT/GPL licensing trouble
Bitscape writes "LWN reports that Corel's gui packager, which uses both QT and lib-apt, fell under a licensing conflict which makes it illegal to distribute. While the author of lib-apt has agreed put an exception in its license for this case, is it a taste of things to come for people who use code released under the ever-expanding mess of incompatible licenses?
"
I don't get why qt and some other things are not fully gpl. It seems like if you want to be part of a linux distro, you should conform to the other parts. Do they make money by not being?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
QT is a time bomb... Many people don't like its licenses and I don't like it either. Maybe it's time we start working on FreeQT again?
Suprise suprise... alot of people here have been dismissing RMS for being "too radical" for saying the GPL is the only truly "free" license. Now you can appreciate, in it's full ugliness, why he's been advocating the distinction between free software and open source.
There is a difference, and you just read about one of them. The GPL or a BSD-style license would not have these issues. The fact that a special exception was required says that the authors are ameniable to change (they didn't have to allow this you know), but wasn't the whole point of this movement to prevent somebody from holding that over your head in the first place?
--
This is why I -personally- perfer the BSD type licenses. NOT intended to start any sort of flame war here... But I think that the bsd license could help prevent things like this.
If we don't GPL QT ASAP, then ASPL or IBM might gobble up the competition with RPM. If this doesn't confuse you, joy. It cetainly confused me.
Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse? It says Romans go home. No it doesn't. What's Latin fo
I can already see the "GPL is the only true license" and "QT sucks" comments coming out of the woodwork.
The fact is that people who write software have the right to determine what license to distribute it under. So, no matter how much you wish everything was GPLed, it is not going to happen.
This is why we have people in the community working with people making S/W trying to make sure that licenses work with the OSD, and I think there have been a lot of successes or at least big improvements (QT, Apple, etc.)
Even with their efforts, there are still going to be compromises like this required. It may not be the best solution, but get used to it!
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
It's an inconvenience and an annoyance when stuff like this happens, but it's probably a necessary evil. Not everyone will agree with RMS or ESR or anyone else, so no one should be forced to use on particular lisence.
If there were a standards body that official stamped things as Open Source, and they required everyone to use, say, GPL, you would loose a lot of developers who don't like GPL and don't want to code under it. Many lisences, even with the headaches they cause, help keep the number of Free Software developers large and growing.
I'd rather have Qt & KDE along with the lisence conflicts, then not Qt/KDE at all. At least the fact that they were able to come to an amicable agreement shows that OSS participants have a sense of community and can actually work together, even through differences of opinion!
Dana
But...
Well, just witness the problems with the whole KDE vs. Gnome conflict. What's the problem, here? I think it essentially boils down to the use of QT in KDE. I rarely see much discussion of the relative merits of the respective GUIs, only philosophical discussions of the two licenses.
What this is doing, people, is breaking down a unity that would serve us very well. This division can only harm us... Sure, we can solve the license problems one by one, and continue arguing about FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. GNU/Linux and what have you. But it's the software that matters. The software is the product, and the various licenses only reflect the philosophy behind the software.
Sure, we can keep solving license problems one by one. But ultimately, we need to proact instead of react. Someone should seriously sit down and think on this problem. The software and the freedom only matter. The rest is details. But as they say, that's where the Devil is.
"Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
GPL, of course, is the standard license for most Open Source software, and for good reason - it does the best job of protecting the source from abuse by others. However, its "viral" nature makes it hard to cooperate with other licenses.
My biggest cooperation concern is MPL, the license for Mozilla's code base. I have great faith in the wisdom and foresight of the Mozilla developers, and i expect it to become the gold standard for browser engines. More importantly, its modular design makes it an easy plug-in for other projects needing a browser interface. And there's the rub... how readily can the Mozilla code be linked to a GPL'd program? I know both the Mozilla and Gnome people are working on the licensing issues, and i hope they'll come up with something that can be extended to use with most other GPL'd software as well.
The other license that worries me is SCSL, associated with Jini and future versions of Java. Again, i think Java is killer technology, and i want to see it grow and mature in cooperation with Linux. But until Java's APIs stabilize, the Open Source variants such as Kaffe (I don't consider SCSL "Open Source") will not be able to catch it in quality. And i want my Java NOW, dammit! So... what sort of licensing hell awaits GPL'd projects that want to use Sun's classes? Yikes!
With the addition of mature Mozilla and Java technology, along with improvements in Linux desktop/WM software, i believe Linux is poised to take the desktop world by storm. I just hope licensing conflicts don't delay it for years to come, and force endless redundant development in order to be compatible with GPL.
---
Maybe that's just the price you pay for the chains that you refuse.
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
Anyways, my feeling is that Debian, and GNU, want to promote free software. Free software is good -- it allows you to change software so that it can fit your needs. It stops the constant reinvention of the wheel. You can combine freely available parts to something greater than their sum.
Now, if you produce some software that is "free" according to the definition, but it can't be used with other free software to produce greater things, what use is it? It has missed the point. The Free Software definition is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The software is not really free, although it conforms to the defintion, because we can't do what we want with it.
Maybe the definition should be changed then. Add another clause indicating that the license must be compatible with the main Free licenses ( GPL, Artistic, BSD ). This will increase our freedom, although it is an extra rule!
Better yet, life would be wonderful if people could use the small set of well known licenses ( GPL, BSD - without advertising, and Artistic ) instead of trying to invent their own. But LWN have already said that.
I think the situation has changed since this debate originally arose.
The QT and GPL licenses certainly are potentially in conflict, but whether they are actually in conflict depends on current practice.
IIRC, the GPL contains a clause which allows software to be linked with non-GPL packages if those packages are routinely supplied as part of the OS. Hence you can GPL a Windows application, and you can link applications with Xfree86 which is not GPL.
Now every major Linux distribution is shipping QT and KDE, doesn't QT now fall under this same exception?
Lets take a configuration management library as an example. It's a convenience thing. Not essential, but makes life that tiny bit simpler.
GPL'd, it'll never become popular with the Unix heavyweights, no matter how clever it is. They'd have to open all their source, so they just won't use it.
LGPL'd they'll look at you blankly.
BSD'd, they'll grab it and hack it to support different file formats, LDAP etc, but it'll *be* there and you'll end up with a cross platform config management API that you can code to.
That's why Perl comes with everything these days.
Deleted
Would it make any sense for the linux community at large to all move 100% to the GNU/GPL? While I think its nice, by definition, to live in a utopia, I don't think its going to happen.
:)), and that is entirely against human nature. Think though, it could be worse. We could all be writing under the EULA. Personally I don't think what libraries you use should have any effect on what liscence(sp? i can never remember..) your code uses.
Getting everyone to write under GPL assumes there is no self-interest anywhere in the community, (except, maybe, for the nice ego boost we all like
If I want to write something that calls libc6 and qt's libraries, they call two different liscensing schemes there. Does that mean that i can not use programmes that use both?
OFTC: By the community, for the community
ftp://128.253.254.56/upload/lwn.html
Of *course* developers have a right to choose their own license! But that's not the point... the point is, there is substantial reason to believe that GPL/BSD "free software" licenses make code more likely to survive and thrive in the long run.
Qt's restrictive license, while technically "Open Source", has very much hampered its growth, and led to the rise of serious competition in the form of GTK (which is safely GPL'd). And i expect that, in time, GTK will leave Qt no more than a niche market. Why? Because TrollTech put their own business interest ahead of the long-term health of the software. Free software is no place for half measures.
The best corporate-protection license i've seen is MPL, which gives Netscape some special privileges but still allows the community to fork the code.
---
Maybe that's just the price you pay for the chains that you refuse.
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
The trouble is that the QT library is so nice to use. We've got to either develop a GPL replacement, or abandon the whole thing. Either would allow the division between KDE and Gnome to end. KDE may have done a lot for usability, but it has dragged the community into a position they never wanted to be in.
/dev/null)
It's hard to blame Corel for this, and I suspect many other "new developers" in the Linux community will fall into this trap, unknowingly.
Maybe at the extreme, it needs to be "use GPL or don't play in the Linux field". Remember, there is nothing that says you can't make money off GPL software (I am right now).
If we're all so sure that Open Source is the way of the future, than this GPL limitation shouldn't matter once all software is on a level playing field.
GRH
(flames happily directed to
That's the whole problem. GPL wants every piece of software anyone writes to *become* GPLed if one happens to mix that source with GPLed source. GPL just cannot "live and let live". It *must* take control of everything.
Well, good luck. One day you'll find out that there is a lot of good stuff out there that people objects to being taken control by GPL.
(8-DCS)
..the obvious problem with the BSD-style licensing scheme is that GPL partisans simply won't use it, because while the spirit may be the same, for those that advocate the GPL, the BSD license is simply not practical. This is because not many developers want to work for nothing to have their products later turned into something proprietary by someone else who rakes in cash with it while the developer never sees a dime of it (though to be fair, some companies actually give you an oppurtunity to work on GPL'ed code for pay). You might as well be on company time if that's going to happen.
At any rate, arguing about which is better, the BSD license or the GPL license, is sort of moot. Most of the weight has been thrown behind GNU/Linux, not *BSD, so the popular choice is quite clear. Some people don't want to compromise their freedom, others simply wish to avoid the aforementioned scenario (with Kaffe being a prime example, it used to be under BSD licensing, but is now GPL'ed because the maintainer got sick of people never contributing back to the main code base).
Mind you, I'm not saying which is ``better'' either. That's.. pointless.. because that would be assuming that everyone has the same outlook. They don't. BSD is better.. for certain people.. while the GPL is better.. for certain others.. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. And the BSD is not very good at accomplishing what people who prefer the GPL are used to expecting, so the GPL is going to remain the sexier license in the eyes of most of the developers relavent to this topic of conversation.
~ Kish
But what I don't understand is where exactly the problem is. Maybe I'm missing something about the GPL here, but explain if you will how KDE and most KDE apps are GPLed, but yet use the Qt library. You can't tell me that KDE doesn't use any GPLed (or at least LGPLed) library code as well.
I was under the impression that the only way in which the GPL infected apps was up the inheritence tree. So as long as Corel's program is GPLed it should be fine.
So what exactly is the problem here? Is it that it has to be statically linked because it's an installer? Does that somehow make it count as it the QPL code has become part of the application? I'm a bit confused here, maybe somebody can enlighten me.
If people on slashdot spent half as much time coding as they did worrying about what other people are doing in relation to GPL (et.al), this would be a moot point. It is one thing to extoll the virtues of true GPL; It is another thing entirely to piss and moan about what a few select individuals (companies) are doing. If you truely believe GPL creates a superior product, get them where it hurts; CREATE a better product. Period.
o ns, etc.
I'm aware I might get flamed for this, but so be it. I tire of the "me toos", RMS "rah rah" crowd, knee-jerk-reaction-crowd-to-geek/privacy-instrusi
The GPL was never designed to be accomodating of other licensing schemes. It is written specifically in opposition to that very notion (although someone once said the only license it was compatible with was itself.. but then.. there's the LGPL, isn't there? ;). It was not designed to win any popularity contensts. The only thing the GPL was designed to do was to be free, and remain free forever (free as in free software as defined by RMS). BSD was designed to let you do practically anything you want to it. The GPL is more restrictive. Using BSD style stuff instead of GPL'ed stuff means it's not copylefted, which means it may not always be free. Think about how close we came to losing the X Window System to the world of proprietary software, for instance.
To repeat the main thrust of this, RMS was laboring under a moral imperative, he wanted to produce free software, not popular at any cost software. He doesn't want to LGPL everything to accomodate others. Proprietary software has enough backing already. He wants to empower free software. BSD style licensing has nothing to do with that .. Which is why it won't replace the GPL as ``the license of choice'', whatever McCusick or anyone else may think.
~ Kish
Without delving back into the GPL's language I'm not entirely clear what the problem is - the Corel tool itself (GPL? The article didn't seem to state that explicitly, but that is what I expect it was) is linking to two shared libraries - one under the QPL and the other under GPL (NOT LGPL, but GPL).
This makes no sense - WHERE is the problem? Does the GPL license explicitly force any libraries it uses to be GPL? I don't think that's so. If it were I imagine a lot of software out there would be invalidated.
Perhaps the REAL problem here is the GPL'd library. RMS pushes libraries to be placed under GPL instead of LGPL explicitly to force the applications that use them to be GPL. I think Corel's app is GPL, so that's OK.
It seems the real solution is for the GPL library's author to place the library under LGPL, so this kind of thing doesn't happen again. RMS advocates GPL libraries so that ONLY GPL applications can use them, which does help to give free software an advantage if the library does really good things. But it does play havoc with anything not exclusively GPL.
Debian seems to follow what FSF and RMS is saying. RMS wants people to stop using LGPL, even for libraries. Check this out: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-n ot-lgpl.html
Je ne parle pas francais.
I have to make something absolutely clear about GPL, because I'm sick of hearing this "viral license" nonsense.
It is wrong wrong wrong and extremely impolite to accuse GPL of being a viral license because an application that links against or is based on a GPL'd app must be GPL.
Someone was kind enough to write a piece of software and give it away. Why shouldn't the auther be able to make the reasonable request that all future uses of that software be equally free? I for one don't want the code I give away turned into commercial products without any benafit to me.
It's not "live and let live" when you base code on my work. That's my work too in there, and I deserve a say in how it's used.
n any event, the Debian-legal mailing list mentioned in the article, is probably a good place to be looking for this.
Fair enough, but I could come up with equally valid examples of where the BSD license has failed the community. Yes, in this case, the BSD license would have prevented the problem. In other cases I've come across, the GPL would have prevented other problems. At the end of the day, I personally feel the GPL creates less problems than the BSD license, which is why I prefer it. You, and others, are welcome to disagree with me...
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
They didn't earn any money with the communicator because they couldn't sell it, thanks to Microsoft's competition.
So they had no problem using a very friendly licence, but Qt is the main product of the company which is selling it, so don't expect this anytime soon.
And that's why you should use the LGPL for your next library, ladies and gentlemen.
(see "Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library" if you don't know what I'm talking about.)
Seriously, free software has seen the successes it has because it shows about the right amount of cooperation with proprietary software. You can't reach into the sources of a GPL application, change it, and sell it as a proprietary application - but you can connect to a GPL server with your proprietary client, or run your proprietary app on your GPL kernel.
As far as I'm concerned, the LGPL fixes a potential bug in the GPL - one way that two separate pieces of software can talk, dynamic library linking, might not be allowed, so we explicitly permit it. Yet RMS seems to think this bug should stay. As far as I can see, this artificial distinction will only make calls from proprietary software into free software (or vice versa) somewhat less convenient: you have to go through CORBA or some similar gateway.
I think that use of the LGPL (the "Liberal General Public License", as I now dub it in riposte) would most usefully increase - that all new programs should start using this license, since it seems increasingly that today's standalone program is tomorrow's library.
--
Xenu loves you!
First of all, *nothing* but GPL code can link to the GPL - not BSD, not QPL - no other license. That is why libraries use the *LGPL*. This is the only library I ever heard to use GPL, but LWN totally fails to mention that. If you use a GPL library *nothing* else can link to it.
..is that no one is talking about the fact that this is yet another instance where Corel didn't ``get it'' with regards to licensing. Unless they've been brainwashed by the media (which would have you believe that the GPL == public domain), then Corel should know that the GPL is indeed a copyright (or copyleft, if you prefer), and that they must abide by the licensing. It is not public domain, which means ``without copyright'', where they can screw it around all they want. If anything, the GPL would do the screwing around if the author of the relavent software so wished. Quite a difference, that.
Personally, I don't trust this entire thing. I for one wouldn't want to contribute to any GPL'ed project if the maintainers/authors of the software chose to make special exceptions ``just this once''. If they want to be accomodating, there are plenty of other licensing schemes, such as the LGPL. Making ``exceptions'' is against the spirit of the GPL. And no, I'm not talking about this software, specifically, but in the broader scheme of things where things could get.. really ugly.
~ Kish
I don't think it's appropriate to speak of an
"ever-expanding mess of incompatible licenses"
There is just one license that is intentionally
incompatible with anything else, the GPL.
It's true that the number of packages under
licenses other than the GPL increase, which makes
the intention of the GPL (that only GPL software
will exit) somewhat obsolete. This plan failed.
Worst thing is that most GPL-using people I spoke
to personally expressed they want protection that
is covered by LGPL, they didn't need the
additional GPL virus. They just didn't care to
look and used the GPL because "everyone else
does".
I tried looking for libapt-pkg with no avail, so I don't know if it is licensed under GPL or LGPL. If it is GPL, then this is a major problem, if it is LGPL, then isn't this ok?
I have stated before that I prefer the LGPL license. Of course this is primarily for libraries (Was Library GPL, but now it is Lesser GPL). Although RMS wants libraries to be under GPL to give GPL programs only a better advantage. But then those GPL programs are limited to using ONLY GPL licensed libraries. If a library has another license it can't link to it. I prefer licenses to state that you must keep my code free (as in speech), even if you modify it. But if you make an add-on that does not modify my code, then that can be under any license you want. I have yet to see a license that states this, except for LGPL, which I don't think can be used with non-libraries.
I don't like BSD, because I don't want someone to take my code and modify it for a proprietary system without giving anything back to the community. If they don't modify it and only use it, then I really don't care. That's their work, not mine. I'm no lawyer, but I would like to see a good license that is like GPL but without the "viral" effect. Label it down to not modifying any of the "functions/procedures and data types". And state that they may only be modified if they are given back to the public. Would anyone argue this license?
I have not much against any license that people use, it's just that if I have two libraries with two licenses, I should be able to use both if I satisfy the license agreement, and not have to have the two libraries having to do the same!
"Why can't we all just get along?" -- RK
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Ah, Modula-3; my favorite counterexample to the idea that hackers always choose tools because of technical merit. Modula-3's been around since about 1990, and in having garbage collection, integrated threading features, runtime checking, exception handling, and OO, it's an important precursor to Java, in addition to influencing Python's design. (The first time I read about Java, I thought "This is a lot like Modula-3, just using C syntax.") M3 came as a freely available compiler (a patched version of GCC) that compiled to native code; no one ever proposed a Modula-3 VM. People at DEC SRC experimented with GUIs and distributed computing using M3. You could have had most of the features of Java in the early 90s using free software, yet M3 never caught on, mostly because of the superficial syntactic issue of being a Pascal/Modula-derived language, not a C-like one. M3 also produced rather large binaries because of the supporting libraries, but Java VMs are even larger today, and much slower. Pity, really; I hope an M3 front-end finds its way into EGCS, giving this language another chance.
The QPL allows linking with any open source code. It is the GPL that doesn't allow linking with Qt, and therefore need a special exception. So, while I'd prefer it if Qt was using a GPL compatible license, it is not fair to claim they are at fault.
As for RMS being too radical, he _has_ acknowledged that Qt is free software, and _has_ said suggested that authers of GPL software include a special exception if someone wants to link it with Qt, even though he dislikes the QPL.
Erm, that was the point.
If you consider this virus a good thing then fine. Others don't.
Personally I think the best licence is the one I tend to use: Mixed AL/GPL (a-la perl).
The point being is that most of my free code is in the form of libraries. I will not restrict the use of my code to non-commercial developers (OK, there are a few commercial GPL developers, but not many). I can't expect an in-house application to have to be GPL'd. And personally I think the world is a better place because of my lenient attitude.
My code should be free. I don't force that idea upon others.
Matt.
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
RMS doesn't want people to stop using LGPL, period. As outlined by the link you provided, he only wants the LGPL to be used when its of strategic advantage (that is, it benefits free software more than it hurts it) to usher in the software in question into being a de facto standard across the board. the GNU C Library is a perfect example of this. Everybody has their own version of a C Library. glibc isn't anything special in this regard. LGPL it, however, and you'll have everyone using it because it's easier than brewing your own. It also ensures that more programs calling on that library will be compatible here and elsewhere without much modification.
What RMS doesn't want to see, however, is software that gives free software a definitive edge (that is, if it does something much better than existing software, or something completely different -- and naturally you'd want the OS to be GPL'ed, duh) being LGPL'ed (which is why I'm still wondering why the Berlin Consortium chose the LGPL.. the proprietary Unices -- and free ones -- currently have X. Berlin would give free Unices an edge if it were GPL'ed.. oh well), because that doesn't help free software.
~ Kish
I never said that all software should be free (either as beer or speech), and anyone who writes code has the right to choose how they share it with others. And i praised Mozilla for a smart corporate license.
The *point*, which you obviously missed, is that the merely semi-free licenses like Qt's are at a serious disadvantage in the "marketplace of ideas" when competing with GPL or BSD licenses. Developers are more likely to work with code they can trust... they can't trust Qt. Which is why, in the end, i expect to see Qt marginalized by GTK, not for GTK's technical superiority, but because the license terms are better for Free software developers. Free speech is better than free beer.
Remember, the ONLY reason TrollTech opened up the Qt license as much as they did was because the community was abandoning KDE for Gnome, almost entirely for licensing reasons. If Qt's license hadn't changed, i think KDE would be nearly irrelevant now. As it is, i think Qt's license didn't change enough, and it only delayed the problem.
Of course, if you think i'm just another fanatical RMS clone, then you won't be able to see beyond your prejudices to the deeper point.
---
Maybe that's just the price you pay for the chains that you refuse.
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
Colour me surprised, but I've never seen quibbling about licensing as a totally fruitless act. Religious debates aside, criticism is valuable. Apple, for example, changed its open licensing sceme after receiving criticism from Bruce Perens and other members of the open source community.
The way I see it, the point of free software isn't software for its own good; it is freedom for its own good. If open source software lags behind commercial ventures, then so be it. The importance is that it is free and can never be taken away. I think that this is what RMS is trying to say, and I think that it's the point that is lost five seconds after he says it; the debate degenerates into a matter of faith, not reason, that fast.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
The GPL is far from free in that it enforces its own morality on anyone that might want to use it.
Not really. You would only want to use the GPL *IF* you agree with its morality(I do). What would otherwise be the reason, the cool name?
>If you use BSD, the rip-off artists love you, but they don't share back.
Please provide PROOF of where the 'rip off' artists don't 'share back'. Not rumors, but actual proof.
Apple, a company that has a history of making promises and then breaking them, has shared back with the BSD community.
Whistle Coomunication took what was called 'broken code' (IPFW) and helped make it work.
Locks keep honest people honest. If your GPLed code is so wonderful, what is going stop the rip-off artists from copying the ideas or the code? Not much, for once the source is released, the code and its methods are known and copiable.
(And given how hard some of the GPL centric Linux community wants to run commerical software, liking the GPL because it is not liked by commerical companies doesn't make sense. EVERY TIME a new product is announced, a whole bunch of GNU/Linux uses say "YEA!" But, if the GPL is anti-commerical, then why the "YEA!" everytime a commerical venture supports GNU/Linux?)
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Yes. The only thing that the GPL requires if you give/sell the software to anyone, you should provide the source at nominal fee on request to that same person. You are not obliged to give/sell the software to anyone else, much less to put it on an FTP server.
The LGPL also has big flaw: It's very easy to extend an app by making your propritary stuff a lib. Consider, say MS wants to sell ABIword. They make a really good propritary MS-WORD lib, and sell it for $100 with OSS abiword modded to talk to it. The GPL would prevent this propritary extension. LGPL wouldn't, thats why we use GPL.
Bear in mind that the author retains copyright. Any GPL'ed piece of work is freely redistributable and relatively impregnable (inasmuch as people respect property rights) to use in a closed source product.
If company X wants to use your code, they can do what any company does when it wants to work from an external codebase; they send lawyers over and work out a deal for the rights to or an alternative license to said code.
That's the way the world works. As open source becomes more acceptable in the wider world, I think you're going to have more and more IT managers dealing with it in a serious manner.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
What I find troubling is the ease at which a special exception was granted for Corel. I am hoping this has nothing to do with the relationships Corel has been developing with Debian, because if so this is totally wrong. The library being GPLed restricts it from being linked to almost anything, presumably for a reason. Now a special exemption is granted for just this one product that wants to link to it? This makes no sense at all. What happens down the road when twenty other special exemptions have to be granted, do we see the license extended by another length of the GPL? And this exemption is being granted only to a commercial entity.
In my opinion what the free source movement needs is the equivalent of cross-licensing, and no, GPL is not cross-licensing when it cannot freely be used in BSD licensed or X licensed code.
So a corporation like Corel can just call up Debian on the phone and instantly get an exemption while an unknown student would not be able to freely study the library code to re-use in his
projects throughout his latter career? I predict no one else on Slashdot will see how wrong this inequity is, and that is the problem.
As a example of how absurd the current situation is, there are maybe a half dozen incomplete attempts to reproduce Microsoft's Windows headers. No one seems to see the big picture that what is needed are one set of headers that are good enough so that serious projects would consider not having to shell out the licenses to buy Microsoft's development tools. No, entities such as Cygnus want to keep the code under whatever license is restrictive enough (GPL) so that if lightning strikes they can make a fortune by selective commercial licensing, so therefore we have perpetual beta products.
This is totally false. Linking a program against a GPL library makes (this particular copy of) the whole program GPL'd. If the program is licensed so that it can be distributed under the GPL (for example the BSD license without the advertising clause and the MIT X license allow this), there is no problem.
That is why libraries use the *LGPL*
This is again false. The L in LGPL used to stand for Library, but this was confusing people, so it now stands for Lesser. It is perfectly all right to license a library under the GNU GPL, in fact, the GNU project encourages people to do that. They regard GNU LGPL as inferior in all respects (as the name suggests); only rarely does a GNU library use the LGPL.
This is the only library I ever heard to use GPL
In that case you have very limited knowledge on free software. There are many examples of GPL'd libraries, including GNU readline and Guile (which has a similar but more general exception clause to the one mentioned in this story).
This is a sign of things to come, as several people have pointed out. Being in the early stages of designing my own linux distribution, issues like this will certainly come up. What may be nescasary is a conference where advocates of the various open source licenses come together to work out their differences. Perhaps creat a definition, and put clauses in each of the licenses that say "This software may be linked to software with licenses conforming to Open Source Definition and the following other licenses... (insert other linkable licenses)"
This would allow more cooperation between BSD, GPL, MPL, etc. without requiring everyone to use the same license. So long as the licenses conform to some general guidelines, which would be determined by a commitee of the people controlling all of the various OSS licenses, it could be linked to other licenses. This would also allow people to use their own licenses if needed without causing the problems that can cause today.
The software doesn't have to be made available for free, as a careful reading of the GPL would enlighten you to. The GPL only states that if you write a piece of software and place it under the GPL, you have to release your source code, or if you make modifications to a piece of sotware that was GPL'd, then you have to release the source to your modifications.
The GPL says nothing about monetary value or having to provide it for free. Red Hat could shut down their FTP servers as long as they provided a method for people to get the source for the GPL components of Red Hat (which includes providing an email address to send requests for source). That Red Hat provides FTP servers is only out of loyalty and benevolence to the Linux community; they're under no legal obligation to make their distribution available for free.
Please, if I'm incorrect, point me to the relevant portion of the GPL which contradicts my statements.
There are reasons it is better to use the GPL for projects that aren't designed to be libraries. For example, suppose I develop a specialized mathematics program. If I release it under the LGPL, it is possible for Wolfram (for example) to rip out the interesting routines and make it into a library. They LGPL their changes to my program, then use that library in Mathematica without my consent or even mentioning that I wrote that code!
This might not be what I intended. If I release it as GPL software, they would have to release Mathematica as GPL software to do this. Wolfram would never do something this, but the possibility that some company might is something to consider. Of course, you might WANT anyone and everyone to take advantage of the code, so then you would release it under a LGPL or BSD license. I think it is entirely reasonable to have both the GPL and LGPL licenses.
The GPL requires that you provide source to anyone you give a binary. That's it. If I do some mods to Emacs and don't give you a binary, you have no right to request the source. The freedom to make private modifications is a freedom RMS recognizes as important.
So if RH decided not to provide an FTP site, it would be ok. It would piss a lot of people off, but it wouldn't violate the GPL. They wouldn't be the first company to sell GPLed software that way.
I don't mind if people want to make software for Linux that isn't GPL'ed. That doesn't mean I'll use it, but I don't begrudge them for it. A few things do need to end, however:
It's an all or nothing thing. If you want to be on the middle ground, you have to use another license, and not try to rip off GPL'ed work because the GPL is a license, it's not public domain.
~ Kish
If all free software used a single license, these questions wouldn't be so difficult to answer. But since this ain't gonna happen, it seems to me that the licenses we use should try to avoid this mess, rather than causing it.
If a license is invalid, then there is no license and the default "all rights reserved" applies. You can't make a program free by declaring its license invalid.
It is wrong wrong wrong and extremely impolite to accuse GPL of being a viral license because an application that links against or is based on a GPL'd app must be GPL.
Yes, it is wrong, not in the sense of immoral (as you had it), but in the sense of incorrect: the GPL does allow you to link non-GPL'ed code with GPL'ed code; it just doesn't allow you to link code that has a license which is more restrictive than GPL to GPL'ed code.
QT is more restrictive than GPL. This is because you can only distribute modifications to QT as patch files.
One idea might be a new license, identical to GPL, with the exception than this new license would allow linking with any licence compliant with the Open Source Definition.
The new license could be called OSDPL.
You have it backwards: the BSD allows redistribution and modification under any license. Including, not excluding, the GPL. If I wanted to modify your program and redistribute it under the GPL, that would be my right, just like I could modify and release it under a user-pay license.
It's ironic that, in slamming the GPL, you're favourably attributing GPL properties to the BSD license.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
I understand that these programs (like KDE) could actually be released under a modified GPL but, to the best of my knowlege, none of them are. Is there a conflict or isn't there?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
If you use GPL then you have just given away that right because anyone else can fork from
your code tree and go their own way.
I've strongly recommened anyone releasing code for the world to see NOT to use ANY of the current BSD, GPL, Artistic what ever licenses. Just write down what YOUR personal wishes are for that code and anything based on it. It is just as legally binding and if it doesn't suit you later then you only have yourself to blame.
That way it ensures that it is the morals and ethics of the person who wrote the code that are used not those of someone else who happend to make their personal morals into a widley known license.
--
Darren J Moffat
Did not everyone see this coming? Even though QT may have been given 'Open Source' (TM) status, GNOME seems more along the line of the DEBIAN/GNU ethos. I wondered about the possible conflict ever since it was announced.
It's a free license, under the definition of free software put down by RMS, but it's also a copyleft, a subcategory of free software also defined by RMS, and thus, it's also a restrictive license, unlike BSD.
Then use the BSD license and don't whine about not being able to incorporate GPL'ed code when you do. It's pretty simple. Whining about not being able to use GPL'ed code in whatever software is paramount to whining that you don't have access to the source code to MacOS, Windows, or any other proprietary work. The authors are free to choose whatever license they choose. If you don't like that, that's fine. Don't use it. Not everyone is going to bend over backwards to be your bitch, however, to use the vernacular. =P
Common Misconception: Everyone tries to weigh the GPL against their own definition of ``freedom''. Well, everyone, there are different kinds of freedom. The freedoms that the GPL enforces are no more and no less than the ones that RMS has stated as those being its purview. The only true ``freedom'' according to bigots who make these unfounded attacks upon the GPL is complete and total anarchy. Sure, you're free, up until someone decides to enslave you. The GPL works to protect the freedoms it has defined as being important, not all ``freedoms'' that these people believe they have a ``right'' to. There's.. a bit of difference.
~ Kish
What is(was?) the status of Harmony, which I've heard about in the OpenSources O'Reilly book, but never heard about on these lists? From what I understand, it's meant to be a GPL version of QT compatible toolkit. Is this project still underway?
make world, not war
The problem with your argument is simple: the fact that the GPL is a free software license and whether or not it is compatible with any other license have absolutely nothing to do with one another. That said, I am having difficulty divining your point. If you're trying to insinuate that the GPL is not a truly ``free'' license, you're doing a very poor job of it.
~ Kish
If the QPL and the GPL are incompatible, then KDE should have this problem, too. What gives? Could someone with legal knowledge please answer this question?
--
Qt's restrictive license, while technically "Open Source", has very much hampered its growth, and led to the rise of serious competition in the form of GTK (which is safely GPL'd).
According to its web site, GTK+ is LGPL'ed.
This is important, because it means you can write proprietary software for GTK+/GNOME.
Perhaps the energies Perens (et. al) have not been entirely fruitless. But they're not hugely sucessful either. If you could harness all that slashdot discontent and direct it into focused coding, rather than pissing and moaning, a great deal more would be accomplished.
Which brings me to my second point. What does it matter if some little company in California creates a closed source product? Whose freedom does this impinge on? With the exception software patents, everyone else is essentially free to code as they please. The point being that the two can exist simultaneously. Yet RMS has been known to advocate prirating commercial software.
Futhermore, GPL software has, for the most part, been totally unfriendly to geeks. Not only in "userfriendliness" and GUIs, but also in terms of software functionality and purposes. In general, it is software that appeals to geeks and geeks alone. To advocate RMS's idea of freedom, is to say: The geeks' right to code free of non-free-software influences, exceeds the right of the average user to enjoy software that meets their needs. I disagree.
Both free and non-free software have certain unique advantages over one another. Not only can they coexist, but they're strengthened by one another -- they push one another to mature and expand in scope. So I come full circle. Let both do their best to succeed; let the cards fall where they may. As a matter of optimizing the results though, free software should worry about what is going on within its own community. Bolster and explain free software, but don't try to tear down anything that is not free.
I just got an email from Elizabeth O. Coolbaugh at LWN about this article, which has several falsehoods (you really can't link BSD or other licenses to GPL code, and it totally disregards the LGPL), and she said it is a misleading article and will be corrected. She also said it was "Obviously put together too quickly" ;) This is the reason Gnome for example uses almost entirely LGPL instead of GPL. The article took a rare exception to this. Using the GPL instead of LGPL for a library expressly means you want to deny linking to any non-GPL code (including BSD). ;-)
Daniel M. Duley
mosfet@jorsm.com Sorry, I don't have an account and Slashdot hasn't sent me a password yet
topic.
There should be a "misinformative" moderation tag for occasions like this.
> Modula-3's been around since about 1990, and in having garbage collection
You need to be able to turn this OFF if your doing embedded real-time systems programming. Part of the reason why C/C++ is still popular: there is no "right way" to do garbage collection.
> and OO
Last time I checked, M3 didn't have operator overloading. The opaque types were cool though.
> M3 never caught on, mostly because of the superficial syntactic issue of being a Pascal/Modula-derived language
It is not superficial, it IS a modern Pascal/Modula2 langunage done right. Unfortunately, M3 is still a straight jacket like Pascal.
Heck, the front-end compiler even generated C code.
Cheers
Refreshing to hear another intelligent soul out there.
Currently due to the restrictive nature of the GPL, a lot of projects are GPL+exceptions.
You say so what? well because of the exceptions none of those projects can legally share code without every author (including the author of every patch) has to legally tranfers rights.
Which is a pain, so what happens, people just share code anyway. anyone who THINKS about the GPL will realize it isn't practical for a lot of situations.
The intent is to share code (at least according to the philosophy section at the FSF). This is supposedly the spirit of the GPL. Problem is the literal GPL reduces sharing if it was followed.
Thankfully most folks in the OpenSource community just get things done and they ignore the literal violations of the GPL they are doing even though their actions are precisly under the spirit of what the FSF says the GPL was supposed to do...
Very true... though I'd bet with the amount of software using the GPL/LGPL that when they are challenged in court and shown to be bogus that we'll end up with a new version of the GPL that addresses the problems... more or less something along the lines of how people are treating (or ignoring however you look at it) the license is what it really means.
There is so much stuff out there violating the LGPL/GPL that it isn't even funny. Many people seem to like the license simply because they ignore the restrictions.
I see where the problem is... i should have said that TrollTech put their *short term* business interest ahead of the long term health of their code. And, in doing so, put restrictions into the license that will drive a significant number of developers to use its GPL'd competitor GTK. And, as more and more developers concentrate on GTK rather than Qt, then GTK will draw more than just license purists... i believe that GTK will become the standard GUI widget set, and Qt will become an also-ran. If you think this is an unreasonable deduction, than give reasons why. Tell me why Gnome came into being, if not for licensing issues? And tell me why Gnome, which was barely running when the Qt license changed, has survived and thrived, given the big lead in maturity for KDE? I say the reason is mostly licensing.
As for your comments about Netscape, all i can say is "HUH?" Because Netscape is now owned by another company, they're not expected to be profitable? Their license is liberal because they *listened* to the community, not just reacted to it. Of course, Netscape is a relatively broad company that is not dependent on its browser for revenues, and improving the health of the browser market (via a Free alternative) improves Netscape's overall profitability. TrollTech, otoh, appears to be a one-horse company. It's possible, but difficult, to run a company on 100% GPL profits.
Perhaps the best thing for Qt would be for TrollTech to fail... then the license would pass into a more truly open state.
---
Maybe that's just the price you pay for the chains that you refuse.
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
This seems to imply that most people on Slashdot know how to code. I'm not to sure I agree with that. It's ``News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.'' not ``News for Nerds. Stuff for Hackers.'' =P And most hackers do spend most of their time, well, hacking. A few exceptions exist (witness ESR), but they are, well, few.
~ Kish
You know, a lot of people - especially slashdotters, like to flame me when I make a prediction, like Corel's gonna make a big screwup, or NetSol's gonna do something, or what have you.
Once again, I've been proven right though. Can't contest it. I said a few months back when this was originally announced that Corel's gonna have licensing issues, especially with Debian. Corel doesn't understand the DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines) and doesn't care so much about them.
This immediately puts Corel into conflict with a good many packages in Debian, pretty much. Told you so. *smirk*
What bothers me, however, is that while I'm not some GPL hardliner, or DFSG hardliner even - the author is compromising his license.
There's one license I won't tolerate - and that's a compromised one. The author owns the software, and how he chooses to license it is his decision. No author should be forced to bow to anyone because they cannot create a derivitive work with a compatible license. This is Corel's problem, and they should be working to rectify it properly - by writing software that can be licensed compatibly, not by basically forcing the author into compromising his license.
Look at it this way; should I put a new stereo in my car, just because big corporation XYZ says so? That's how I'm looking at this - you may view it differently, but IMNSHO, that's not how it is. Here, a maintainer is basically being told to compromise on his license because a corporation says so. I don't believe for a second that this is right. Even for the good of the distribution as a whole, it simply is not right.
If Corel's going to consider DFSG a hinderance that the maintainers and authors have to work around, then I think that Corel had best get off it's butt, find a new distribution that doesn't care about author's rights and the DFSG, and start from scratch. This is nothing short of bullying, almost Microsoft-style, to make sure they get their way so they can turn a profit.
Yes, it's going to increase Debian's user base - assuming Corel isn't found guilty in the Canadian's SEC-thing investigation - but it's now doing it at the cost of author's rights and freedoms. They've already had one licensing blunder - this makes two - how many more will there be? Eleven? Thirty? Fifty? For all we know, the entire distribution could end up being totally incompatible with the GPL or DFSG. Maybe Corel will change their license, or maybe they won't. Time will tell on that.
But at this point, it's my belief that the entirety of Corel's base - which is Debian - has now been compromised, as well as Debian as a distribution alone. Sure, Corel can throw in fancy things like WordPerfect 2000 and Corel DRAW! and other neat applications that would fall under 'non-free' at best. But they're doing it at an incredible cost. I really have a hard time accepting the compromise of a license as 'reasonable' in any situation whatsoever. If the author wants to license their software in a specific way, then that is their right to do so. They licensed it how they wanted it, they can change the license, but never should they be forced to change the license.
We already know Qt/Qtlib/KDE is non-DFSG compliant. Corel said 'we don't care.' Corel blatantly ignored the restrictions of the GPL and other licenses when they released the beta. Now they're basically forcing authors to change their licenses so they can attempt to save their finances.
Maybe Corel should have just gotten RedHat. At this rate, their ethics and intelligence are about the same level. Maybe even as bad as Microsoft, who frequently bullies programmers who use their products. It's trendy to hate Microsoft, though, so I'm sure this will get moderated down as 'flamebait' or 'troll' by the people who have never actually authored anything.
Ah well. Some days, it's just not worth getting out of bed, I guess. Much less out of bed to program. Maybe I should put a clause in my programs that says they can't be used by Corel for profit. See how they handle that one. *sigh* Yet another day of SNAFU. Situation Normal, All Fucked Up. Maybe someday we'll see some honest and decent corporations, but I guess it's going to have to wait for now - the almighty dollar calls again.
-RISCy Business | Rabid unix guy, networking guru
your company here.
shelby != ford
They could use LGPL, compatible with GPL and everything else. Or they could just LGPL the Unix version and have some other license on the Windows version (not ideal at all but at least better).
How about some examples of this?
Personally, the only class of "problems" associated with a BSD-style license that I see is that the original developer of the code may never see one penny of compensation should someone use his code in a proprietary product -- but that's a risk the developer is apparently willing to take. On the other hand, the restrictions associated with the GPL seem to me to create more problems for the developer unless he is self-consciously planning to give away his own code. Otherwise, he has to more carefully consider whether he's willing to give up proprietary rights to his own code (which "feature" of the GPL earns it the nickname of "virus").
FWIW, the developer faces the same risk with either the GPL or BSD license: he isn't going to make a dime off of someone else's commercial product. For that developer, the GPL/BSD licenses make his code a gift to others. The BSD seems to be a bigger gift because it allows others to go proprietary.
But it's up to the individual developer.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
I believe that maybe 20% really knows how to code. Another 10% has contributed something to GPL. And 1% contributes regularly, if that. Of course i'm pulling these numbers out of my ass...
;)
My point still stands though, most comments on slashdot are sychophantic -- which appeal to slashdot's own unique formula for dogma. They could contribute, yet most don't. It'd certainly be more effective than, well, doing the slashdot dance.
I believe that maybe 20% really knows how to code. Another 10% has contributed something to GPL. And 1% contributes regularly, if that. Of course i'm pulling these numbers out of my ass...
;)
My point still stands though, most comments on slashdot are sycophantic -- which appeal to slashdot's own unique formula for dogma. They could contribute, yet most don't. It'd certainly be more effective than, well, doing the slashdot dance.
I hate seeing people reinvent the wheel a dozen times. I don't like the idea that I can't use an mp3 encoder for free - I have to pay somebody for it. I really hate the concept of "proprietary" because that slows everybody down - it slows me down, it slows the industry down, it slows the user down. it is for this reason and this reason alone I release my stuff under gpl. Because once I release it under GPL, the work is there for everybody to add and build on - and it also guarantees that both myself and my fellow coders don't have to recode things because They(tm) won't make their source under a free license. And to be honest - I'm alittle lazy too - I want to work on the interesting problems... and if somebody has already done half of my work I'm just happy as a clam to use it.
--
If the answers to these questions are "yes" and "yes" then this is not flamebait; it is the victim of political oppression by the GPL jihad.
On the other hand, if the author is guilty only of hyperbole in saying "all" other open source licenses, does that really constitute "flamebait"?
Methinks the moderator is a wee bit touchy...
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
This line from the article made me a little tense:
Please think seriously before you create a unique license for your software product. Please use the GPL or the BSD style license if you can.
I don't want to overreact. I understand that the author is simply trying to encourage the use of established Open Source licenses. In fact, it has been my personal experience that many developers who fear the GPL don't entirely understand it ("The GPL causes me to sign over my copyright to the FSF. I can't modify my own program and sell it closed-source to someone later.")
But I want to make a simple point -- the developer has an absolute right to determine the license under which his/her product is released. If Joe Programmer releases the most killer Linux app ever, but his license agreement requires you to hop on one foot to the mailbox and mail him a check once a month, then you either start hopping or you don't use the program. You can send Joe nasty emails, you can publicly flame him on slashdot, but none of that changes Joe's right to use his General Hopping License. If you can't handle the GHL, Joe's product is useless to you.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Perhaps the energies of Perens (et. al) have not been entirely fruitless. But they're not hugely sucessful either. If you could harness all that slashdot discontent and direct it into focused coding, rather than pissing and moaning, a great deal more would be accomplished.
Which brings me to my second point. What does it matter if some little company in California creates a closed source product? Whose freedom does this impinge on? With the exception software patents, everyone else is essentially free to code as they please. The point being that the two can exist simultaneously. Yet RMS has been known to advocate pirating commercial software.
Futhermore, GPL software has, for the most part, been totally unfriendly to geeks. Not only in "userfriendliness" and GUIs, but also in terms of software functionality and purposes. In general, it is software that appeals to geeks and geeks alone. To advocate RMS's idea of freedom, is to say: The geeks' right to code free of non-free-software influences, exceeds the right of the average user to enjoy software that meets their needs. I disagree.
Both free and non-free software have certain unique advantages over one another. Not only can they coexist, but they're strengthened by one another -- they push one another to mature and expand in scope. So I come full circle. Let both do their best to succeed; let the cards fall where they may. As a matter of optimizing the results though, free software should worry about what is going on within its own community. Bolster and explain free software, but don't try to tear down anything that is not free.
PS: I took the liberty of cut and pasting this from another of my replies in this thread.
If you want to write a closed-source application for Linux, you must pay Troll Tech roughly $1,500 USD per developer.
Of course that's only if it uses QT.
It's a very reasonable one-time fee. It does however mean that the low budget "shareware" model is broken under the QPL. There are no royalties or hidden fees beyond this one-time cost, but as of my last reading of the QPL there is nothing to prevent TT from introducing royalties in future versions of QT for commercial application development.
Most people don't seem to care about this though because it doesn't hurt free software, and it even promotes using the GPL as opposed to developing software commerically. I however find the concept of TT profiting for every QT/KDE based commerical Linux venture very objectionable.
Read the QPL.. it's a very fair licence and very interesting. Just also pay attention to what it doesn't say.
proof.
Windows uses BSD code. When was the last time Microsoft gave something back?
-- Alastair
Branden Robinson, the Debian weenie, is certainly doing a good job of spreading his scandals around.
I wonder why. He seems to have quite a good grudge too, look at this.
For some reason many people believe that if linux was not under the GPL, that we would wake some morning and no one could find the source for it. "Oh shoot someone must have extended it commercialy during the night." I'm not sure where this leap of logic came from, but it is clear that people need to be more educated about the different types of software licences. Speaking of which is there any good places that run through BSD, GPL, LGPL, MPL, all the other L's?
...
Confucious say, "when all is said and done, more is said than done." Such is the human equation.. it is unalterable. Instead focus on committing more people to the project than encouraging those who would rather say than do.
--
I was going to say, just make a law which forces all software to be GLPed? Or open sourced at least ...
(See this story)
Eh, just a thought.
yeah
Actually, IIRC, the clause refers not to "routinely shipped libraries" but instead to "essential system libraries"...to me, the distinction is vital.
There is absolutely nothing "essential" about QT for Linux...I can rm that tree, and my system will reboot just fine. You can't however simply remove the Windows\System directory, and expect anything to work properly.
While accurate, you miss the context of why that original clause was amended to the GPL. RMS wanted to make certain that software authors could write GPL'd Motif software, which at the time was (and some could arguably write still is for commercial vendors) the most popular GUI widget library available for UNIX and it's clones. RMS didn't want to prevent Free Software authors from writing useful code, so he carved out a niche for Motif and told everyone to go ahead a write free Motif code.
Now I ask you, since Motif is completely closed source while QT meets most "Open Source" guidelines by at least Eric Raymond's perspective, how is this clause usable with Motif and yet unavailable for QT? Or better put, how is a closed source Motif allowed to use the "Essential system libraries" clause while an "Open Source" QT can't, when they perform exactly the same system level services?
Beats me. RMS, can you chime in here???
Since the BSD license lets you do whatever the heck you like with the code, as long as you retain copyright notices, you can indeed redistribute derived code under the GPL.
You just need to include something like the following in your header: "includes code copyright (c) by [whomever], with permission" (details depend on the BSD license) but the derived work (and the change may be trivial) comes under a new copyright and whatever license you, the new copyright holder, choose to slap on it. If someone you distribute it to doesn't like it, they're free to go back to the original BSD version (if they can find it), but it won't have your changes. If they want your version they have to live with whatever license you've put on it, including the GPL.
(The GPL doesn't have a problem with including BSD code because for the purposes of the GPL, the whole derived work can come under a new license, since the BSD does not prohibit that. Other licenses may prohibit that, and those are "GPL-incompatible".)
-- Alastair
There is a world of difference between commiting your people to a project, and trying to change the world by shouting at anyone who will listen. Slashdot is mostly the latter.
In my experience, the people who DO the most are those who SAY the least. Words are cheap. Action is not. In short, put your money where your mouth is. Make it work; others will follow. That is the real nature of man.
While it's true in one sense that only the (copyright) owner can relicense code, it is also true that some licenses (e.g. BSD) specifically authorize inclusion in derived works without influencing the license of that derived work.
Under copyright law, a derived work is not the same as the original work(s) from which it was derived, although it may infringe on the original(s) unless such inclusion/derivation is authorized. The change to make it a derived work might be quite trivial, so long as you do something differentiate it.
The BSD allows derivation without restriction. The GPL allows derivation with the restriction that the derived work be GPL'd. Other licenses place even more restrictions on derivation. (Well, strictly speaking, not on derivation but on distribution of derived works.)
-- Alastair
As I recall, the QPL owes its current form largely to the uproar caused by the original license among the "gimme free stuff" crowd - who obviously liked it enough to want it, but not enough to pay for it. Would this particular conflict have occurred with the original QPL, or is it an artifact of the pressure to come up with something acceptable to the GPL bigots in the context of still trying to run a business?
I'm not (just) trolling here. I'm genuinely curious whether this is a self-inflicted wound.
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
..like an obligatory cheap shot, and it probably is, but I'm not trying to flame you, so yeah. Ha!
And just what are you spending your time doing right now? ;)
~ Kish
Oh? I thought the ability to fork was a key feature of the GPV, one that its zealots hold up as a Truly Good Thing. You mean it's not?
The problem with X and BSD licensing schemes is that they're only free as long as the principal maintainers decide it should be.
You're missing the point, again. A maintainer has the absolute right to decide his work, henceforth, will be released on something other than Open Source terms. Fine. Even so, he CANNOT change the terms of his previous releases. If those releases were once free, they will always and forever remain free.
This is where the above link comes in real handy. I suggest you try it.
I read that post the first time around. In it, you agree with me that RMS and his zealots use a different meaning for "free" than the rest of the world; in so doing, they commit intellectual fraud upon the populace. Only in that limited definition of "free" does the GPV maximize freedom.
I think it's really amusing that you think I'm the clueless one, so much so that you think I don't know about the XFree86 Project.
If you do not wish to be seen as clueless, it would behoove you to act as if you had two clues to rub together.
By the way, this wasn't a flame war until you made it one.
This has been an ongoing flame war for nearly 10 years. This thread on Slashdot is merely the latest iteration.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
We've gotten ourselves into a big mess with the whole licensing issue. Now we need to find a way out of it.
GPLinglibraries is just plain stupid. How do you ever expect someone to write a program using your library if they don't even understand the licensing issues? Especially if he is just some late night hacker making a cool program. He doesn't have the time, the energy, or the knowledge to work out the licensing issues. That's the very reason he came to Linux in the first place: he wanted freedom from restrictions, so he write some code and share it with others.
I believe this is a case of can't see the forest for the trees. At this point we've got SO many licenses, we are all arguing over which is better for a specific purpose. Isn't the purpose just supposed to be to write good software that people can use and modify without worry? Why create and continue to perpetuate all these silly licenses?
The community needs to stop and think about all this, and consolidate on a few GOOD licenses that will work together. The GPL and LGPL are good starts, but this debacle proves that the Linux game is still too complicated for many people (including corporations) to play. I know I don't want to check the license of every single library I use, to make sure they don't conflict (especially when I don't have the knowledge to understand them in the first place.) The fact is, I'm a coder, not a lawyer, and I'm certain there are a lot more like me out there. We've got to simplify these issues, and fast, before it gets to be a real problem.
I can see it now...Microsoft's Linux Myths II - why licensing makes Linux too much trouble. Sadly, they would have a point...
Well, I don't think your karma will take too much of a negative hit because of this one. (Unless you're a hardcore AC who loves negative karma)
It's definately worthwhile to point that out about JoeSoft's productions and how he can license it however he chooses. I don't think that stuff has ever been tested by public opinion or otherwise (i.e. I release foo-0.9 GPL'd, foo-1.0 is then non GPL'd commercial software, but is foo-1.0 infected by foo-0.9 because it's a derivative work? Is retroactive license changing allowed? Probably not) but I would always agree with the assertion that the developer always will assert control over the product he develops, except when it is a mutual development on the part of many people, where it gets murky...
Damn, what we really need is a GNU or non GNU legal coalition. Bite my tounge, I didn't just suggest that!
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
If you give the source away, you give the program away.
Indeed.
Now, if you mean to imply that as soon as a copy of source "escapes", the market goes away because everyone can get a copy at more or less zero cost, then that's just wrong.
If their market had dried up as soon as gratis copies were circulating, RedHat would only have been able to sell at most one copy of their distribution.
Giving away software doesn't mean that your market dissapears.
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org
DNA just wants to be free...
There are all kinds of freedom, sure, however, if you release a library, you presumably intend other programs to link against it.
The only purpose for releasing a library on the GPL instead of the LGPL is to force all programs linking against it to be GPL'd. RMS has -said- this. This is what he -wants-... the idea being every time a license conflict occurs, the other software will be legally forced to comply with the GPL by becoming GPL until the whole world (or at least lots of software) is GPL.
So... well, personally, I wouldn't use a GPL'd library. Ever. For anything. But people have gotten used to libraries being LGPL'd. When a GPL'd library comes along, it's easy to make the mistake (unless you're already looking for it.)
(I am, BTW, a Debian Linux user and happy to use GPL'd apps and LGPL'd libraries).
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
teach me to code. i will. in the meantime, i enjoy wasting my time being a pain in the ass on slashdot.
gg
gg
Dr.Whiz-Bang
If foo-0.9 is all your work, you can release foo-1.0 under any license you want. You can even release foo-0.9 under any license you want. Copyright is tied to particular manuscript instances, not the abstract string-of-words: you can hand Joe a foo-0.9 under GPL, and Jim a foo-0.9 under MS EULA, and Jim can't redistribute (unless he got Joe to give him a GPL'd copy).
If foo-0.9 is not all yours, then you have to ask all the people who contributed more than N lines of code (IIRC, FSF says N=16, but I could be wrong) to agree to change their licensing terms. Once you have every code author releasing their stuff to you under Some Random License (SRL), you can then go ahead and treat the whole thing as SRL, no matter what previous license terms have been arranged.
This is all as far as I understand it; I've never seen the inside of a law school. (I've seen the inside of a lawyer, but that was on "ER.")
--
--
#define private public
I'm studying actually. Taking a few breaks in between thoughts to check up on replies on Rag Dot (Inside Joke: Slashdot). One thing I'm definetly not doing is extolling Free software as the be all and end all, nor am I telling others what they can and can't do with . Though most likely, my words are lost on deaf ears.... :)
I still don't like QT. I've programmed in it before; that's why I don't like it. It's not a language issue (I prefer C++) I just dislike QT and some of the things it does. It's not a GTK vs. QT thing either; I've never programmed for GTK so I won't say anything about it.
However, I really, really fail to see why it is that these licensing issues come up. I believe it's calles a Section 10 Exception, people. That is, an exception to the GPL which grants the user rights to distribute a specific component of the software under non-GPL terms. I use one myself in the ICQ client I'm working on, to allow for distribution even though you can't distribute PowerPlant (the framework I'm writing it with).
It's not so hard. KDE could have done it before QPL. Corel could do it now. Honest question: why don't people do this when such issues come up? Yeah, I know it isn't "pure" GPL, but sometimes you've gotta do what you've gotta do to get the code out there.
You guys are right: BSD code doesn't just
magically disappear if someone does a proprietary
fork. The old code is still there. But have
you ever heard people talk about how code needs
to be maintained or "bit rot" sets in?
A free software project is more than just the
code, the code also needs a critical mass of
developer (and user) attention in order to keep
going.
If the energy of the community becomes split
by a proprietary fork, it may turn out
that the free project that you've been
investing time in has suddenly vaporized.
All your bug reports, all the patches you've
written, all the time you've spent learning
to use the software, *and* all the time
you've spent evangelizing, trying to get
other people on board, all of this is
now at risk. There's now someone out their
dangling checks, bribing your friends to run
off and hide and play by themselves. If you want
to stay in the community, you now have to send
them a check (or accept one of their checks,
along with their non-disclosure agreements).
In practice the project may not survive this
split, and despite everyone's dreams of avarice,
the piles of money may not even appear for
the defectors.
So, in my opinion it's kind of a mistake to
focus on just the raw code. And what the GPL is
*really* for is not exactly the preservation
of freedom (though don't tell RMS I said
that), it's more a matter of preserving a
community. (You could call this
"communitarianism" but that term is taken
already.)
-- Joe Brenner, part-time GPL zealout
(The example I have in mind here is postgresql,
which has been through *two* proprietary
splits in it's history. On the one hand, it
now looks like it's doing okay, but on the
other hand those forks clearly were pretty
bad blows that it took a long time to recover
from.)
Application "A" links to libraries "B" and "C". What difference does it make what licenses "B" and "C" are under, so long as "A" is properly licensed? "B" is *NOT* a derivitive of "C".
On a tangent, the purpose of a library is to be linked to. This is not deriving from the library, merely a "use" of the library, and the GPL expressly permits any and all uses of GPL'd code. The only thing it restricts is modifications and distributions. Even if the library was under the strictest proprietary license available, linking to it is still covered under the "fair use" clause of copyright.
The more I see articles like this the more I'm glad I switched to BSD for my own code. That way any downstream developers know they won't get their asses sued off for sharing code with their friends.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I surmise it's actually a little too complex for you.
While you are correct in stating that if you give away the source, you give away the program, there are a large proportion of people who don't wish to compile every single program on their own. If that was the case, distributions wouldn't exist as they do today.
People want the ability to download precompiled binaries and have them execute, and for many they personally have no desire to read the source code. Towards that end, the GPL gives no mandate that the source code *necessarily* be *included* along with the application being distributed in binary form. All it requires of the author/distributor is that they make the modified source available within reasonable limits (and those limits are enumerated in the GPL).
Red Hat could quite easily turn off their FTP servers. All that FTP provides is an efficient method of source distribution, more so than posting it via a hyperlink or requiring the user to send a request via email and receive a large attachment in return. But Red Hat is under no license-enforced obligation to distribute their code for free via FTP, nor do they have to include it on every CD they ship - all they have to do is provide free access to it via a reasonable method to anyone who asks for the source.
Maybe what you meant is that Red Hat can't *charge* for the source. In that case, I believe the GPL is in your favour.
Sorry, go back and read the old Qt license. It says you can release your code under the GPL, LGPL, *OR* distribute as open source.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
What winning? Is this a race? You can't view the programming world as a win/lose game. It doesn't work like that. Unless you want to be viewed as very anti-social, you work with others. There is no harm in working with "proprietary" vendors; there is a place for both kinds of software in this world. Don't narrow your views.
If you want a really good name for it, try Slashnull (as in Slashdev Slashnull, or /dev/null ;). Signal 11 also has a good name or two for it if you can pry it out of him. Ha!
Then who is? Certainly not Signal 11 nor myself. =P
~ Kish
Sorry, I should've been clearer...
I wouldn't use a GPL'd library in my own software, and I would not be inclined to contribute to GPL'd libraries or projects using GPL'd libraries.
Obviously if lib-apt is a GPL'd library I'm going to be using applications that depend on GPL'd libraries.
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
Stop whining about how other people license their software. If you don't like the GPL, then don't use GPLd software. There are many people who want to ensure that their code is always free, and is never used in closed source software. That's their right; learn to respect it.
Sheesh. BSD license kooks. Go figure.
I guess that not only do I not see a proprietary fork as bad, but I also see them as smaller threat then a free fork. The very fact that the original software is free makes it difficult to compete for users against it. If someone just closes up the source, and tries to sell it for $500 they'll go no where. Proprietary forks are going to have to add something substantial enough to overcome that free/open advantage, and if they can do this, more power to them, they are making better software. Maybe those things should have been, and still could be added to the free source. I also don't see why developers are going to abandon the free project for the proprietary one. Has this happened to FreeBSD? Are developers leaving Linux for Solaris, HP-UX, AIX? The fact that the original source will *always* remain open, regardless of what others do, is very very powerful. I guess it is a matter of opinion, I see that GPL at worst as being a tool to restrict other peoples freedom. I just don't like the idea of a community that uses the GPL to force membership.
write something that MS can use.
sh_
(moderators: please use 'troll' or 'flaimbait' to downgrade)
Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
I know this- I personally write free software on MacOS, as that's what I know and it's convenient. I know that RMS dislikes this. However, I don't care, because I don't let him define the meaning of the GPL, just the words.
To me, it looks like this: RMS has defined the most stringent form of a sort of licensing known as 'free' or 'open', and it is not the actual code that is significant, it is the process of doing it. I don't intend to buy into the fallacy that I can't share unless everybody I work with shares with _me_... I can be dependent on lots of people, Apple, Adobe, whoever, and have no power or freedom with their code at all. That doesn't change the fact that _I!_ release free software- and, significantly, that I GPL it. This is the result: I may be dependent on other vendors, but in my software writing I deny them the use of what I've created unless they are ready to play by the same rules, and I share with anyone playing by the same rules as I am.
That's why I don't find it unusual or strange being a Mac OSS programmer, or mind the relative scarcity of other Mac OSS programmers. It's not about what's in it for _me_. It's not about me pretending to have the ability to extort other people to release and share code. I simply understand very clearly exactly WHO I'm willing to share with, and who I'm not- and the GPL is exactly what I need, even with its various faults.
It's not about whether I can force my whole environment to be nice- it's whether I can cooperate only with those ready to be nice, and just deal with the others in whatever way I must. The GPL gives me the power to discriminate in this manner. If someone wants me to support (by using) a piece of proprietary software, they have to convince me it's worth the price, and even then, they can't touch any of my stuff unless they do it on my terms. I am not the victim of proprietary code- if it breaks it breaks, nobody expects much of software nowadays. Proprietary code does not need a total war against it to succumb to entropy, it does that all by itself...
Actually, it was more meant for the proprietary libc's that came with the Un*x systems that GNU was bootstrapped on. When the Motif issue came about, people kind of looked the other way (RMS included), but it was an uncomfortable situation. Emacs (the quintessential RMS work) has never used Motif, even though the crufty widgets it used in lieu aren't great to work with (Xawe, I think).
Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but I distictly remember RMS stating the this exception was OK for use with Motif. And I'm certain that emacs is #ifdef'd for use with Motif, because I've built straight emacs linked against Motif before. There's a
[time taken to check] Yup... I'm right about Motif support, here's configure output from the latest emacs-20.4: [snip for brevity] The thing is, Motif was never a very viable development tool for free software developers. You have to statically link, people on non-proprietary Unicen usually don't have the development libraries, etc. So, people could look the other way because there was never any real danger of it starting a trend.
Qt is viable. That it is Open Source isn't terribly meaningful, because the GPL doesn't mention Open Source in any way -- and it shouldn't, because the Open Source Definition is hardly a legally robust document.
So, are you suggesting that RMS and his lawyers are going to draw a line in the sand and test the GPL in court here??? This seems not only dangerous but also an action with little gain. QT may not meet complete "Free Software" requirements as far as RMS and other total GPL proponents are concerned, but if the FSF decides to fight this issue out they better be ready to deal with compilation on proprietary UNIXen as well.
I think the most important point to make is that the enforcement of all of these licenses must be consistent across the board. If RMS, Linus, the GIMP developers, whoever, start playing games like "Well, you can derive from my source, but (s)he can't," just like how Sun's SCSL is structured, then we've denegrated the GPL and Free Software for all. It seems to me that if RMS includes support for Motif right in the latest emacs itself then GPL proponents really don't have a leg to stand on when claiming that QT and other GPL'd source can't be linked together; at least not if they want their argument to stay consistent.
I'm being off topic for the subject, but not for what this thread became.
First I do agree that Moderation is sometimes a problem (I travel at -1 to read all). Sometimes I think people get to hyped up about it. But give Rob a break, he's trying really hard to make it work. It may not be the perfect system (maybe far from it) but I believe it's the best system out there for now.
Only allow those who have been moderated up with "informative" posts to have moderator priviledges. Especially don't allow folks who have only been given
positive karma for "Funny" posts, because a funny poster doesn't necessarily imply a clued poster.
I think this is a good comment. It may make Rob work a little to get it to work. But this means we need to have a double karma. Or just have karma affected by "insightful" and "informative" posts.
Allow Meta-Moderators to moderate not only whether a specific post's moderation was fair, but also whether the score total was fair as well.
You can't blame all moderators for this. Once as a moderator, I saw a good post at a one, and thought it should be a two and moderated it up. But because I didn't refresh recently, two others did the same. The post ended up as a 4 which it should have only have been a 2. But you can't help it.
Only allow one moderation per comment per moderator.
Rob has stated that this is actually the case. Although you will loose points if you moderate a comment twice, it won't affect the actual score of the comment. If you think you've done this, see my prior remark.
Prevent moderation (except for first post trolls and flamebait) for the first thirty minutes after a new top level topic.
Good comment, but how do you determine a first post troll or flamebait automatically? F1R$T p0sY and how do you automatically determine a flamebait comment? (or do you call first posts: "trolls" and "flamebait", I read it as "first post trolls" and "flamebait")
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
I'd just like to point out that this is only correct if you are talking about obsolete versions of Qt. Qt 2.x, which is the current released version, is licensed under the QPL, which *is* DFSG-compliant. Check out libqt2 2.0.2-0.1, which is *not* in non-free.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
I didn't insinuate you were doing anything. Luser. ;)
Joking around aside, it seems that you are paying attention to this thread, despite your delusions that I was insinuating that you weren't (or something). And I work graveyards (I'd say ``what's your excuse'' but obviously you were working, so, um.. yeah).
~ Kish
..that the above post was not moderated down, but my response to it was (it was regarded as flamebait, specifically).
Just thought I'd throw away a little more karma just to point out how utterly clueless some moderators are, especially since this subthread wasn't even a flamewar until Jay became a part of it.
~ Kish
- First I do agree that Moderation is sometimes a problem (I travel at -1 to read all). Sometimes I think people get to hyped up about it. But give Rob a break, he's trying really hard to make it work. It may not be the perfect system (maybe far from it) but I believe it's the best system out there for now.
OK, my original post wasn't a slam against Rob for allowing moderation to get out of hand but that the consequences of letting these problems continue could be very damaging to the credibility of Slashdot. It's just true.- Only allow those who have been moderated up with "informative" posts to have moderator priviledges. Especially don't allow folks who have only been given positive karma for "Funny" posts, because a funny poster doesn't necessarily imply a clued poster.
- I think this is a good comment. It may make Rob work a little to get it to work. But this means we need to have a double karma. Or just have karma affected by "insightful" and "informative" posts.
Each moderation type ought to be stored in the database as separate records and affect one's karma differently. In fact, instead of having a total karma aggregate it would be better to insightful++ and informative++ separately, with each affecting one's moderation privilidges differently down the road. Makes sense? Why keep track of different kinds of posts and not use that data later?- Allow Meta-Moderators to moderate not only whether a specific post's moderation was fair, but also whether the score total was fair as well.
- You can't blame all moderators for this. Once as a moderator, I saw a good post at a one, and thought it should be a two and moderated it up. But because I didn't refresh recently, two others did the same. The post ended up as a 4 which it should have only have been a 2. But you can't help it.
OK, this is not about blame... it's about a broken system. I can't think of a solution to that one either.I'm snipping the next because I didn't that a single user can't moderate a post up multiple times. Interesting.
- Prevent moderation (except for first post trolls and flamebait) for the first thirty minutes after a new top level topic.
- Good comment, but how do you determine a first post troll or flamebait automatically? F1R$T p0sY and how do you automatically determine a flamebait comment? (or do you call first posts: "trolls" and "flamebait", I read it as "first post trolls" and "flamebait")
Oh, that's easy. Just limit the selection for moderators to only "flamebait", or "Troll" during the first thirty minutes... afterwards moderators could have access to the whole range of qualitative criteria.I'm time limited so I'll have to forgo my normal emacs spell checking and grammer edits... hope this doesn't look too messy.
Worse than an untouchable, when I reincarnate I'll be lucky to return as bacteria.
Right, so we should completely ignore licensing issues that could potentially kill our projects? Not a good idea.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Emacs/Xemacs is one that people use, today. I don't feel like thinking of any more, but that one was just to easy to think up. *BSD's too (ok, one more). Gcc/egcs (im not sure if that is really a fork).
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
I think RagDot is wonderful. I can offend both the feminazis and the stereotypical slashdotter (leftish, anti-capitalist, etc) in one foul swoop. Rag works in so many different ways....
1) Its rag like, think newspaper
2) Think Women (bitching and moaning)
- Think Red (need I explain?)
-Think Commie (well duh)....
...I said it, now watch me get flamed... hehe =)
The problem with allowing linking from within the licences (i.e. GPL, but allowed to link to Qt) is that it raises the possibility of linking to a non-free version of Qt. If Troll Tech release a new version of Qt that sufficiently many people want to use features of, free programs will end up relying on the corporate versions. Instead, it would be a sensible idea to create a GPL derivative that specifically allowed linking to other free software. This would give the following advantages:-
a) People currently wishing to join GPLed projects A and B, which respectivly depend on Qt and Mozilla are unable to, because the exemption for Qt does not extend to Mozilla, and vice versa. This would avoid the problem, because the licence would differentiate on the grounds of the type of licence, not the specific project.
b) It would allow people to move their GPLed projects to allow them them to be linked to things like Qt without the risk of them creating problems with regard to freeness, etc.
c) Its a standard. People can check standards more easily than they can check the miriads of exemptions currently springing up.
CloudWarrior . "I may be in the gutter but I'm looking to the stars"
Do you consider Democratic nations to be "free countries"? If you do, then surely you will acknowledge the fact that true freedom for all comes with responsibility. Just you can't kill someone, and say "It's a free country!", you can't expect developers to want to be ripped off (although some will). The GPL doesn't let you be selfish (eg. reap all the reward/profit for something others worked on). This is why I use the GPL. If I'm going to be generous enough to release something to the community, I sure as hell do not want some selfish bastard^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbusinessman to claim ownership to my work. As it is my right to license my work however I please, I choose the GPL, because my views happen to coincide with RMS's.
L inux, which is completely absurd.)
I use the GPL in all code I write, except when it's a patch to, say, BSD-licensed code, because that would just be dumb. Why? Because it my choice, and I want to. I want free software to have an edge against proprietary software. BSD-style licenses do not let free software have this edge; the GPL does.
So quit whining that "It's not BSD", because really, the BSD license is also incompatible with the QT license, and would have caused the exact same problem.
(And no, I am not an RMS-worshipper. I just happen to agree with much of what RMS says, though not everything: GNU/Linux is a dumb name for the Linux OS, as GNU software is not the only software on it. If I followed RMS's views on that, I'd take it one step further, calling it X/GNU/BSD/TrollTech/Corel/Apache/KDE/OSI/Aladdin/
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Yes, of course you expect people to link to your library. However..
There is a price you pay for using any kind of software. This may or may not include money. Proprietary software vendors who produce libraries also expect you to link against them. However, they also expect you to fork over some cash, possibly among other things. GPL'ed libraries expect you to GPL the program. You're not being forced to use GPL'ed stuff any more than you are proprietary works. If you don't like the license, use something else.
RMS has said that he only wants libraries which offer something new and unique that hasn't already been done to be GPL'ed. Stuff that everyone already has one of (like a C Library) should be LGPL'ed for strategic purposes. Just because RMS is trying to proliferate the works of his philosophy doesn't mean he is holding a gun to your head saying you have to use stuff released under his license, or even license your software with his license. He'd probably like you to, but he's not going to track you down and murder you in the night if you don't. Many people's arguments would seem to indicate otherwise. heh.
Well, that's your choice, and you're welcome to it. I'm not sure what this all has to do with whether or not the GPL is ``free'', but ok. The point being, with regards to that last sentence of yours, that people should pay attention to the licenses of the software they are using. If you're a programmer, you really can't afford to do otherwise. I wouldn't follow Corel's example in this case.
~ Kish
Assuming you're correct, such a statement would be patently ridiculous. There is a distinct difference between ``free'' as in ``free to use or abuse as you see fit'' (with regards to what you do with the source code, not with regards to just running the application) and ``free'' as in the freedoms the GPL was meant to protect. The GPL was never written under the pretense that it was ``free'' in the first sense I used. It might as well be public domain in that case. Sure would save all of the headache involved in writing a license. The GPL is restrictive. It's not meant to be ``free'' as in ``not restrictive''. I guess one really has to actually sit down and read the damn thing to understand that. I wish more people would before they slammed it. You don't even have to get past the preamble. =P
~ Kish
If the QPL (a RMS certified Free License) is what's keeping you from using KDE, you need to get a life!
You don't give a reason why you don't like Qt/QPL, so I can only assume that it's political. Get over it. Your operating system isn't a political party. You won't go to hell if you use KDE. Be your own person and make your own decisions without RMS telling you what to think.
The fact that you say you would "switch from Gnome in an instant" implies that you aren't 100% happy with Gnome, and that you see KDE as being better suited to your needs. Don't let the lack of a non-GNU library stop you. Jeez Louise!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
There are reasons it is better to use the GPL for projects that aren't designed to be libraries.
I agree.
For example, suppose I develop a specialized mathematics program. If I release it under the LGPL, it is possible for Wolfram (for example) to rip out the interesting routines and make it into a library. They LGPL their changes to my program, then use that library in Mathematica without my consent or even mentioning that I wrote that code!
They can't do that, though -- your code is STILL under the LGPL, and because they've made changes to it they have to distribute their changed source. It's true that they've gotten the advantage of your library without their software being free, but at the same time they haven't done anything to hurt your library.
So nothing unexpected has happened -- and in fact, I see that as being VERY good. They will fix bugs in your library, and you'll be able to use the bugfixes. You have gained.
-Billy
This is slightly off-topfic, but I've been wondering.
It is a common practice to link GPL apps to LGPL libraries (even emacs does it). Presume that is legal.
Is it legal to link a LGPL app to a GPL library?
If not, what is the is the difference from the above scenario? In both instances, you are actually using someone else's code in your program.
Is the output of a GPL program covered under the GPL license?
How does the GPL license deal with corba objects? CORBA objects work like library objects, don't they? So if you have GPL app that is CORBA enabled, could it link to a properiatery CORBA object?
Je ne parle pas francais.
It's fair to say that the GPL is older, but that doesn't make it better; and if in fact it's true that said linking is not a problem for the other open source licenses, then IMO the original AC was correct: the source of incompatibility is the GPL.
This is the natural interpretation anyway, since it's what RMS intends: he doesn't want to make it easy for people to use GPL-ed code (as opposed to LGPL-ed) with non-GPL-ed code. He wants to make it impossible for those who want to keep their code private while still selling binaries.
That's the developer's choice, of course, but it's silly to "blame" Qt for licensing problems when it's the GPL that actually generates the problems in the first place.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
Well, the guy's got a point! His powers of offense are awesome.
Usually the phrase is rendered "one fell swoop," but in this case, "one foul swoop" seems more accurate anyhow. And the benefit of the doubt says it is the only clever turn of phrase in the post!
Cheers,
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
What part of it? I see nothing here that contradicts what I said. Am I missing something?
The MIT X license explicitly allows relicensing the work, the BSD license gives an equivalent right by allowing the work to be distributed without any restrictions. So, both licenses allow me to put on the GPL.
The damn GPL won't even let you use a GPLd subroutine in your non-GPLd program or even link to a GPLd library.
True. I'd say that's a good thing except that if I did say that, I'd be flamed to death ;-) Seriously, the GPL was designed to keep software free, and I can't think of a way to do this better.
Syntax is superficial. The semantics of a language is the important thing. Of course syntax can be inconvenient or downright evil, but it usually isn't very important. Learning the syntax of a language is a relatively easy thing, the semantics are much harder. Generally, that is, there are always exceptions.
Of course syntax can always get in the way, but if it was flexible syntax that decided, everyone would be using Lisp instead of C-like languages.
I switch between C-like, Lisp-like and Smalltalk-like languages all the time, I don't have a problem with the syntactic differences.
Heh. I notice you took this quote completely out of context. Buddy, when Alan Cox makes a point about kernel issues that's germain to the topic at hand, and the moderators don't even seem to know his name, you better believe I consider that broken moderation!
This is not about personality cults, it's about presenting useful information to those capable of doing something. Slashdot has degenerated to the point where useful, factually correct, information is sloughed off for cheesy hip-hop ubercyberpunk crap-on-grammarless-steroids, moderated up because it fits an ideal of cool regardless of it's informative value.
Should this continue the core contributors may just blow outta here... not out of malice towards
Sorry DUDE.
Worse than an untouchable, when I reincarnate I'll be lucky to return as bacteria.
I write an Operating System. Full with GUI and all. And, hey, you have a four thousand lines driver I'd like to use. Sure, I don't mind distributing the source code for your driver, and preserve your GPL license.
But, why the hell should I GPL all the millions of lines of code I wrote that have nothing to do with your driver ?
(8-DCS)
The "all rights reserved" default is not a unique feature of the US copyright law. In fact, it is part of the Berne convention, on which copyright law is based in almost everywhere on the world. (In fact, my comments were based on Finnish copyright law, not that of the US.
It would be very unlikely for the US DoJ to take any criminal action in cases where the copyright was not registerred.
Copyright registration is not required, and in fact in most (some? certainly in Finland) countries there is no mechanism to register copyright, as it is an automatic right.
Sure, RedHat is a private distro. The only distro that comes close to being public is Debian, to the best of my knowledge.
Let me explain what I mean by private distro and let you make your own opinion. RedHat is being developed by a limited number of Developers. Not just anyone can jump in and write for RedHat. You can submit bugs all you like, but there is no guarentee that they will fix it.