2) isn't an option for FreeCAD and hardly an option for LibreCAD (also explained)
Rewriting is *always* an option. The blog doesn't make it clear how much of the code can't be relicensed, but I assume it's a substantial amount. What they should be doing now is separating the portions out that are gpl2 only into separate files and dual license the rest to gpl 2 and 3. Only accept contributions with the dual license going forward. Deprecate the code and libraries that use gpl2. When they finally excise it all, drop the gpl2 license. This should be done regardless of whether they ultimately choose to use LibreDWG.
Of course they can't distribute it until they're done.
In a perfect world where there's no pain, sorrow and tons of lousy licensed code? Sure. In the real world? Unlikely.
Originally Posted by thalaric
What they should be doing now is separating the portions out that are gpl2 only into separate files and dual license the rest to gpl 2 and 3. Only accept contributions with the dual license going forward. Deprecate the code and libraries that use gpl2.
Again, in the real world there is nothing you can use in place of Open CASCADE, and writing a substitude is unrealistic. Would you like to prove me wrong?
Unlike gpl2, gpl3 was partially authored by lawyers and was subject to a very intense public vetting. There's no reason to suspect it won't stand up in court. Besides, the worst that can happen is that the prosecuting party loses their license to use the code. So yes, that argument is FUD, just like it was used against gpl2 before it went to court.
As for freedom, yes, you are more free to open source code and then sue anyone who uses the code for patent infringement. Congrats, if that is a desirable outcome.
I'll admit to this point of what may be unforgivable: in my day job I write closed source code.
Heh I'm guilty of that aswell. Well to be clear, I don't explicitly write proprietary code, I simply write code on a contract basis, I have no control of what those paying me for the code does with it.
That doesn't prevent me from liking or contributing to open source though. Unlike RMS I don't see anything morally wrong with proprietary code, I do however see alot morally wrong with the lock-in tendencies which sadly often accompany proprietary code.
The enthusiasm Michael has for Valve, and the hate he has for RMS almost make me feel like he is being bought by some corporate interest.
Why is it so hard to understand that in the long term these silly licensing disputes might prevent adoption, but it also ensures that corporations cannot easily just do their R&D on the public and pick up the fruits and reap all the money like BSD license is designed to.
Gplv3 is less free than GPLv2. Plus overly complex. And while the v2 has been proven by courts, GPLv3 has not.
So there are good reasons not to use GPLv3.
Complexity synonym for Details. Details synonym for Clarity. For example, in HD you have more details and better quality as in VGA, more picture clarity.
Moving to more Freedom means puting more Restriction on the antonym.
GPL2 is less Free, as in "containing more ways to Restrict Freedoms".
GPL3 is more Free as in "adding more Restrictions on removing Freedoms".
You can also read it as: GPL3 is less Free as in "it is more restrictive to "have more Restrictions on removing Freedoms".
But hold on, a Freedom to "add a Restriction" is NOT Freedom, but is freedom to Restrict.