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

61–70 of 104 posts

Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

#61

Post by dragonwriter »

muuh-gnu wrote: post #16
JoshTriplett wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line you quoted doesn't appear in the terms of the license; projects can use that language to apply GPLv2 or any later version, but they don't have to do so. Many projects explicitly use version 2 only, most famously the Linux kernel.

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.

Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

#62

Post by tzs »

muuh-gnu wrote: post #21
TylerE wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> GPLv2 has an _optional_ update clause that Ribbonsoft/QCad did not elect to use. Actually, the clause is recommended by the FSF. Projects that remove the clause do that fully intentionally. Considering how long copyright lasts (70 after the death of the author), it is IMHO pretty short sighted to make the licence of a project stuck in time and unable to react to any future legal challenges.

Omitting the "or later" option does NOT make the license of the project stuck in time and unable to react to future legal challenges.

It just means that the owners of the project copyright are the ones who decide how the licensing of the project will change over time. This is not short sighted. It is the best way to ensure that they can keep their code free. If you adopt the "or later" option, you are letting your code be forked under the terms of whatever license the FSF decides to attach the name "GPL" to. The FSF has already shown that they are willing to back away from free software by adopting the non-free AGPL (it does not satisfy freedom 0). Why believe that they won't compromise future versions of regular GPL, too?

By omitting the "or later" option, the project owners can take a look at each future version of GPL, and decide if it is still free and meeting their concerns and requirements, and then update their license if appropriate.

Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

#63

Post by dragonwriter »

muuh-gnu wrote: post #21
TylerE wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> GPLv2 has an _optional_ update clause that Ribbonsoft/QCad did not elect to use. Actually, the clause is recommended by the FSF. Projects that remove the clause do that fully intentionally. Considering how long copyright lasts (70 after the death of the author), it is IMHO pretty short sighted to make the licence of a project stuck in time and unable to react to any future legal challenges.

Omitting the "or any later" clause doesn't freeze the project license for ever, it just prevents the terms on which the software is used from being changed out from under copyright owners (including the project owners) arbitrarily at the whim of whoever is currently in charge of the FSF.

The project still has control of the license it offers the project under; of course, if it depends on software from anyone else that is on limited-to-GPLv2 terms (which lots of projects are), it can't change to any other license (whether GPLv3 or non-GPL) without either replacing the outside software or getting the copyright owner to agree to different licensing terms.

The project at issue here appears to use GPLv2-only because they are dependent on other software that is GPLv2-only.

Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

#64

Post by tzs »

muuh-gnu wrote: post #26
jamesjporter wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe license changes can be applied retroactively to all versions with the permission of all the copyright holders; I would assume this is what was done.

Only if you still get it directly from the copyright holder. If you get it from someone else, and that someone got their copy under the terms of GPLv2, they still can distribute it under v2.

That is an unsettled question. According to the license itself, you cannot sublicense GPLv2 code. When you distribute a copy of third party GPLv2 code to someone, their license is coming from the copyright owner directly, not via sublicensing through you.

If the copyright holder is no longer issuing licenses, it is not at all clear what would happen. The analysis gets complicated and speculative at this point. There are quite a few plausible theories, but it is going to take a few actual cases followed by appeals for any clarity to start developing in this area.

Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

#65

Post by sigzero »

RexRollman wrote: post #51
rosser wrote: post #2

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.

I completely disagree. The FSF has every right to not re-license the software.

I don't think anyone is arguing that they don't have the right. I think people are arguing that it is a douche move on their part.

Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

#66

Post by drcube »

matt2000 wrote: post #53

I have a hard time describing any license that limits your rights as one promoting freedom. I never understood why the FSF wasn't more behind the BSD style licenses.

Is the US Constitution "restrictive" because it limits the right of our president to become a dictator? Would a constitution that said essentially "Those in power can do whatever they want" make us more free?

Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

#67

Post by rquirk »

benatkin wrote: post #9

When did the FSF change it from GPLv2 to GPLv3? It should be possible to go back to that version and fork it. Or is it applied retroactively?

The initial checkin to git on savannah is 2009, with a GPL v3 licence.

But if you go to the original sourceforge svn repo, it started out GPL v2. I think you could fork a version from prior to revision 21 from sourceforge and it would be GPLv2+.

Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

#68

Post by endgame »

anonymouz wrote: post #23

Anyone surprised by the fact that the FSF puts its principles about the purity of free software licenses before pragmatism hasn't been paying much attention. The GPLv3 is the flagship license of the FSF and they think it fixes some issues with the GPLv2, so it's hardly surprising that they will refuse to relicense their high priority projects under the older license. "But you'll gain more users" has never been a reas…

> "But you'll gain more users" has never been a reason for the FSF to compromise on their principles.

Actually, rms recommended a more liberal license for Ogg/Vorbis.

http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3

Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

#69

Post by _ak »

meaty wrote: post #20

At 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.

Same here. I only use software licenses where I can understand every single word. My personal preference is MIT, but 2-clause BSD or ISC would be equally fine.

Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

#70

Post by gknoy »

benatkin wrote: post #54
jlarocco wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been well known for a long time that the FSF is only interested in advancing their own idea of "free software." At this time it's the GPLv3 flavor of free software. 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 t…

The need for open source tools that interact with dwg resonates strongly with me. I hope they can rewrite it, and I hope they choose BSD (or MIT) rather than GPLv2.

Exactly: The solution seems to be (unfortunately) to let LibreDWG languish, and write a new library which is GPL2, or some other license. Sounds painful, since the people who want to use it are those who until now have not been (I assume) the ones writing the library.
Post reply on HN