Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

phoronix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–104 of 104 posts

Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

#101

Post by gillianseed »

dragonwriter wrote: post #90
gillianseed wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With 'they' I was referring to the 'third-party' who were the ones which licenced without the 'or later' to begin with.

Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

#102

Post by millerc »

glesica wrote: post #99
millerc wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This comment is basically nonsense. Not saying I agree or disagree, it just makes no sense as a response to my comment. I was making a factual correction. The GP suggested that LibreCAD change their license. I pointed out that doing so is not possible and not likely to become possible. That is all.

You are discussing the impossibility of a simple relicensing due to components owned by a third party. I am pointing out that the FSF has a history of going to great lengths rewriting software, or pressuring people to do so, just so the resulting product falls under a license they find acceptable. Can you explain how am I being nonsensical?

Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

#103

Post by millerc »

Flimm wrote: post #78
millerc wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In a lot of countries, it's impossible to put something in the public domain immediately.

That's an excellent point. Would you have any advice/thoughts on how to license software in those countries with the same effect as public domain, and also how to plan ahead so that it eventually becomes public domain?
Post reply on HN