41–50 of 104 posts
Why the fuck would a library not use the Library GPL? It's the same stupidity as readline.
Why the fuck would a library not use the Library GPL? It's the same stupidity as readline.
It's GNU policy - see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html
This surprises anyone? As far as the FSF (or at least Stallman, which for all practical purposes is the same thing) is concerned, LibreCAD and FreeCAD are in the wrong here — for using one of the FSF's own licenses . Stallman is a zealot, and this is what zealots do.
Well the FSF purports to be an organization that advances the cause of free software, so it's worth calling them on their bullshit. Not everyone thinks of them as a zealot organization even though it's headed by a zealot. Perhaps they should. Also I think this issue might be fixable if there's enough outcry about it. And they really are in a tough situation because of this.
For people who don't agree with the FSF's idea of "free software" or don't want the politics that goes along with the GPL and FSF, there's always the BSD license. Though it really wouldn't help in this case, since the library in question belongs to the FSF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's GNU policy - see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html
The irony here is really hard to miss: "By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives."
If you consider non-free software immoral and your ultimate goal is to outlaw it, providing libraries which can be used by proprietary software makes you guilty of aiding and abetting.
Doesn't the what?
http://features.slashdot.org/story/13/01/06/163248/richard-s...
"What project is using the wrong license? by gQuigs
...
RMS: If I could magically change one program to GPLv3, it would be Linux. ... Another program that is important to convert is LibreCAD. This is more than a fantasy: the developers of LibreCAD are working on replacing the old GPLv2-only code that they included, so as to switch to GPLv3-or-later. Would you like to help?"
> LibreCAD is GPLv2 licensed since it came out of code from the QCad Community Edition product from Ribbonsoft. It's bound to GPLv2. The GPL has an upgrade clause. > This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. Why doesn't th…
Because that's not what's used. GPLv2 has an _optional_ update clause that Ribbonsoft/QCad did not elect to use. This file may be distributed and/or modified under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation and appearing in the file gpl-2.0.txt included in the packaging of this file.
I cannot stand the GPL, it's an absolute unworkable nightmare. It's set out to achieve something fantastic and it's been ruined, it's so heavy handed that in the real world it's now meaning developers will avoid it rather than deal with it as there's so many gotchas like this.
Why not provide a way for users to download the library separately and execute it as a binary blob? That way, if there's a license violation, it is the responsibility of the user. Kind of like libdvdcss and Handbrake? On the other hand, it seems odd to me that the kind of person who would be hung up by licenses is interested in using free software. Why not just buy AutoCad at this point? I guess that's sort of the FS…
Broadly speaking the rule of thumb is that if something makes use of internal knowledge of GPL code implementation or function (i.e. unique data structures/objects/functions that are not considered "standard"), it's considered a derivative work (this is also how the Linux kernel approaches GPL vs non-GPL drivers, too). If all it were to take was to adapt and repackage a GPL project as a dynamically loaded library, the GPL would be meaningless.
In my mind, the really hairy area is where certain projects seem to be allowed to define "public" APIs that surrender GPL protection and allow use of closed binary libraries (i.e. the Linux kernel's public driver interface or Octave's MEX interface). Or what happens when the BSD folks just copy your API and re-implement everything (undermining the uniqueness of the GPL software's internals)? Don't bring this up to the FSF though, they suddenly switch from being eloquent to pretending to be dense.