FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

[ворот93]

Well what did you expect, this whole 'article' exists only because Michael saw some opportunity to further his crusade against the FSF. And as such it's filled with misinformation in order to further that agenda.

There's no one that discredits FSF more than FSF itself.

[prokoudine]

You think that these were 'mistakes'? Sorry to burst your bubble but they were obviously intended.

Personally, I'm quite prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Delgarde]

Yes, but _Free_ software licenses, like the GPL, support free software.

Except in this case, it's *not* supporting free software - it's punishing them for sticking with the mostly widely used version of the FSF's own license.

[mendieta]

I don't mind the FSF insisting on the v3 license, but shouldn't a library like this be using the LGPL?

Yes, for a long time, I even thought that LGPL stands for LibraryGPL (as opposed to Lesser). This is what the FSF has to say:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

Note that they admit that most of the GNU Libraries are LGPL, but now they decided (for reasons not stated there) that it is better to move away from that.

I think this is probably not a great decision from the FSF, in many ways (including ignoring the author of the GPL software trying to use the library). But I think there are a couple things that bother me a bit about Michael's article:

* This is clearly an opinion from him, so he should probably have an Editorial section. Since this reads like "News", but it's basically a long rant reiterating a main point, over and over.

* This same reasoning about "the FSF being restrictive" or "too strict" is a historical recipe for Falacies, or at least circular endless discussions. Because one camp says "BSD is more free, it lets you do anything". The other says "BSD allows people who screw your freedom abuse the system".

Me? I tend to agree with the latter opinion, but I think there are components like basic libraries that are better off LGPL or BSD, because by nature they need to be accessed by lots of free software with different licenses, and, at the end of the day, you want to help them all.

Cheers!

[pholklore]

Except in this case, it's *not* supporting free software - it's punishing them for sticking with the mostly widely used version of the FSF's own license.

The mostly widely used version has the "or later" bit. Nobody's being punished. It was those (not the FSF) that chose to use GPLv2-without-or-later that explicitly chose to not make use of v3+ licensed code. It was a concious decision at the time, now they get to live with it. This is _not_ the FSF's fault, in any way possibly imaginable.

[brosis]

Except in this case, it's *not* supporting free software - it's punishing them for sticking with the mostly widely used version of the FSF's own license.

Licenses are designed to punish if you violate them. Every single of them.
Maybe they should have used public domain license, if they did not desire protection against stripping of four freedoms.

Also, "freedom for slaver" means "restriction for slave". "Restriction for slaver" means "freedom for slave".

"Freedom to close source down anytime" means "restriction to open the software".

"Freedom to open the software" means "restriction to close it down".

Not many licenses are free as in Freedom, but GPL definately IS the one.
So, if you step on Freedom in GPL, you trigger license violation. I don't think its hard to understand.

[bridgman]

Yes, for a long time, I even thought that LGPL stands for LibraryGPL (as opposed to Lesser).

It was Library initially :

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.0.html (library)
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html (lesser)

[prokoudine]

The mostly widely used version has the "or later" bit. Nobody's being punished. It was those (not the FSF) that chose to use GPLv2-without-or-later that explicitly chose to not make use of v3+ licensed code. It was a concious decision at the time, now they get to live with it. This is _not_ the FSF's fault, in any way possibly imaginable.

LibreCAD team didn't choose GPLv2-only license. The inherited that from QCad. Would you like to actually read what you are discussing?

[Delgarde]

Not many licenses are free as in Freedom, but GPL definately IS the one.
So, if you step on Freedom in GPL, you trigger license violation. I don't think its hard to understand.

*Which* GPL, though? This isn't an argument about the merits of GPL vs something else - it's about a GPL project being unable to use a GPL library because the two GPL versions aren't compatible.

[XorEaxEax]

*Which* GPL, though? This isn't an argument about the merits of GPL vs something else - it's about a GPL project being unable to use a GPL library because the two GPL versions aren't compatible.

As stated, the GPL licences originating from the FSF are compatible, since they have the 'or later' clause. This was explicitly removed by Ribbonsoft thus creating a 'new' GPLv2 ONLY licence that has nothing to do with FSF.

There's nothing 'wrong' with them doing this, everyone has the right to licence 'their' code as per 'their' wishes, however the problems generated by this choice as discussed in the article does not fall on FSF, as it is Ribbonsoft who chose to make their code GPLv2 ONLY and thus incompatible with later GPL versions.