Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 83

Thread: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    94

    Default Free? Don't make me laugh

    It's bad enough that GPL is incompatible with most other free source licenses. We don't need it to be incompatible with itself. Freedom my ass, at this point they're just trying to validate their own existence.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gigaplex View Post
    It's bad enough that GPL is incompatible with most other free source licenses. We don't need it to be incompatible with itself. Freedom my ass, at this point they're just trying to validate their own existence.
    Learn to read moron. This is NOT being incompatible with GPL, this is being incompatible with a MODIFIED GPLv2 licence which was DELIBERATELY MODIFIED TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH ANY OTHER GPL LICENCE.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default The problem is with LibreCAD and FreeCAD not FSF

    Both LibreCAD and FreeCAD both want to use LibreDWG and have patches available for supporting the DWG file format library, but can't integrate them. The programs have dependencies on the popular GPLv2
    Well this is where the problem lies!

    If LibreCAD and FreeCAD wants to use LibreDWG they are the ones who need to figure out how to upgrade their licenses to GPLv3, not the other way around.

    They will have to figure out how to remove the dependencies on GPLv2.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Yeah, (L)GPLv3 is a much imrpoved license over v2, and just does a better job of achieving it's goals. Unlike the FSF, I do agree that all libraries such as this should be *L*GPL though. That said, unlike this article, I still don't think this is an issue with the library.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    Learn to read moron. This is NOT being incompatible with GPL, this is being incompatible with a MODIFIED GPLv2 licence which was DELIBERATELY MODIFIED TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH ANY OTHER GPL LICENCE.
    I read it, nowhere in the article was the word modified mentioned. In fact your comment is the first mention of a modification. It was about GPLv2 being incompatible with GPLv3. GPLv3 adds additional restrictions which by definition makes it contradict with freedoms granted in GPLv2.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gigaplex View Post
    I read it, nowhere in the article was the word modified mentioned. In fact your comment is the first mention of a modification. It was about GPLv2 being incompatible with GPLv3.
    If you are referring to the misinformation bullshit Micheal was splurting when linking to the actual article (or rather blog post): http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/e...-new-beginning

    But if you read the actual article you would know that Michael was spewing bullshit, GPLv2 is NOT incompatible with GPLv3. This pertains to code where a company (Ribbonsoft) deliberately REMOVED compability with later GPL versions by taking away the 'or later' clause from GPLv2 and then licenced said code under this 'new' licence they created. Or if you couldn't bother to read the article you could simply read the posts in this very thread to which you responed.

    Quote Originally Posted by gigaplex View Post
    GPLv3 adds additional restrictions which by definition makes it contradict with freedoms granted in GPLv2.
    Obviously there are changes to GPLv3 which makes it different from GPLv2, otherwise it would not exist, but it does not mean that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, the reason they are compatible is because GPLv2 as officially defined by the FSF (who created the licence), has a 'or later' clause. This means that you can use that GPLv2 licenced code as GPLv2, OR at your discretion use it as GPLv3 (or GPLv4, etc should such a licence emerge)

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    If you are referring to the misinformation bullshit Micheal was splurting when linking to the actual article (or rather blog post): http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/e...-new-beginning

    But if you read the actual article you would know that Michael was spewing bullshit, GPLv2 is NOT incompatible with GPLv3. This pertains to code where a company (Ribbonsoft) deliberately REMOVED compability with later GPL versions by taking away the 'or later' clause from GPLv2 and then licenced said code under this 'new' licence they created. Or if you couldn't bother to read the article you could simply read the posts in this very thread to which you responed.


    Obviously there are changes to GPLv3 which makes it different from GPLv2, otherwise it would not exist, but it does not mean that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, the reason they are compatible is because GPLv2 as officially defined by the FSF (who created the licence), has a 'or later' clause. This means that you can use that GPLv2 licenced code as GPLv2, OR at your discretion use it as GPLv3 (or GPLv4, etc should such a licence emerge)
    Ribbonsoft did NOT deliberately remove compatibility with later versions of the GPL by taking away the 'or later' clause from GPLv2.

    From GPL v2 text:
    Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
    The GPL v2 already explicitly states that "any later version" is not an explicit right granted by GPL v2 and the license does not need to be modified to avoid granting that right. If a project is licensed under GPL and specifies v2 but doesn't explicitly specify "or later" then that clause is not activated.

    So please, refrain from calling me a moron for my inability to read. If a project is GPL v2 without specifying "or later" it is by default incompatible with GPL v3.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Wow, it is retarded that LibreDWG is licensed under the GPLv3.

    It ought to be licensed under the LGPL or BSD license.
    Nothing retarded about it at all, GPLv3 is the right choice for LibreDWG. LGPL and BSD are lousy choices for freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    This reminds me of the GNU Readline library which is also licensed under the GPL instead of the LGPL which causes pain to free software developers because now it cant be used in projects such as PHP.

    Some of these silly decisions (by RMS, FSF and the GNU project) really harm free software.
    There are many non copyleft alternatives to GNU readline that are readily available. And no the FSF, GNU and GPLv3 are not hurting Free software in the slightest, Free software grows every year because of of the FSF/GNU and GPL.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    because GPLv2 as officially defined by the FSF (who created the licence), has a 'or later' clause.
    "or later" is not a part of the GPL.

    You can license your code under "GPLv2 or later" and many people do. But if you license your code under GPLv2, then it's GPLv2 only. Like the Linux kernel and plenty of other software.

    "or later" means giving the FSF the permission to relicense your code. Since many people trust the FSF, they do this.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Europe/Moscow
    Posts
    167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pholklore View Post
    Thank you, but I'm not a wacko, and I am concerned by this stuff. Of course I am. If getting things done would be more important, I'd consider proprietary software just as good an option. That argument just smells like double-standard. No, keeping software free is the most important.
    Actually, no. When proprietary software is just as good an option we use binary drivers, binary firmware and play proprietary games. Because computer is a fucking TOOL not a RELIGION.
    Quote Originally Posted by pholklore View Post
    If you don't agree, feel free to reimplement whatever FSF code you dislike in whatever license you prefer. Nobody's forcing you to use the FSF code.
    Pretend it doesn't exist, and be happy.
    I'm sure developers will. It is FSF's making us Linux users look bad, very bad. FSF should really die as it only creates additional reasons for ridiculing us.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •