FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project
81–90 of 104 posts
Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project
#82At the risk of starting a flame war, this is why all my shit is BSD licensed. Like the software, the license isn't a pain in the arse either.
Are you saying you selected your software for the BSD lic, or just that the stuff you like happens to be BSD lic?
Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project
#83This 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.
What bullshit? This is about a company (Ribbonsoft) which released their code under a modified GPLv2 licence which removed the 'or later clause', thus making it a 'new' licence which is incompatible with any other GPL licences except GPLv2.
FSF has since created GPLv3, under which all their code is now released, for all GPLv2 licenced code out there which is using the FSF's original GPLv2 licence there is no problem since it has the 'or later' clause. The problem here is that Ribbonsoft removed the (or later) clause and thus making it incompatible with future GPL versions.
And what is this 'tough situation' they are in?
Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it is effectively their fault for preventing the licence of their project from _ever_ being updated, even in the case where some future legal loophole makes exploiting GPLv2 code possible. It is short sighted essentially freezing the legal status of a project forever, and it is even more idiotic to blame the FSF for being incompatible with projects that voluntarily cut off forward-compatibility by removing the "or…
I suppose, if you want to blame them for making use of on open-source code released by a third-party software vendor that was happy enough to release it under the GPLv2, but not happy to allow arbitrary changes to the license terms controlled by the whims of the FSF in rewriting licenses in the future, and who has no interest in relicensing now under the GPLv3, with or without an "or any later" clause.
If they had left in the 'or later' clause they could still use it under GPLv2, just not _limit_ it to GPLv2, which is what the 'third-party software vendor' decided to do.
Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is always the need for somebody to stand up as the opposing side to those who seek to build their business on abusive practices such as vendor lock-in or DRM. The FSF is that voice, and it's a more important role than ever. For example, the FSF has long warned of the dangers of DRM, and in recent years these warnings have proved themselves prescient now that we have things like Amazon remotely wiping Kindles on…
Cannot imagine the world without FSF. Thank god for FSF and RMS.
Kids today have no idea what the web and Internet were like in the 90s. The GPL is vital to our freedoms.
Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project
#86That phoronix missive was the stupidest post I have read in a long time.
Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
LibreCAD doesn't hold the copyright, so they can't change the license. The copyright is held by a private company with no particular incentive to make the Free product better, especially since the paid product wouldn't be able to use the LibreDWG code.
You seem to forget the primary reason why the GPL came to be, the principle that caused RMS to rewrite EMACS as an open source product in the first place: if a piece of software is closed, or in this case "not open enough", they want it rewritten under a new license. This story only seems to be a case of political pressure to do so, regardless of the effort a rewrite may cause. In this regards, FSF is clearly putting…
no, the GPL is mainly motivated and designed to encourage openness and collaboration among authors. It removes authority: if you wish to use the code, do whatever you want with it, as long as you share the changes with the rest of the people that are interested in it.
Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project
#88Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project
#89That phoronix missive was the stupidest post I have read in a long time.
Phoronix is like that....
Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose, if you want to blame them for making use of on open-source code released by a third-party software vendor that was happy enough to release it under the GPLv2, but not happy to allow arbitrary changes to the license terms controlled by the whims of the FSF in rewriting licenses in the future, and who has no interest in relicensing now under the GPLv3, with or without an "or any later" clause.
If they had left in the 'or later' clause they could still use it under GPLv2, just not _limit_ it to GPLv2, which is what the 'third-party software vendor' decided to do.
If they had left in the 'or later' clause, they couldn't use software from the third-party supplier, who only licensed under GPLv2 without the 'or later' clause.
If you are distributing someone else's software (even as part of your own work), you are restricted by the terms of the license they've given you. If that's GPLv2-only, you can't distribute a work incorporating their work as GPLv2-or-later.