C++11 & The Long-Term Viability Of GCC Is Questioned

[ryao]

Not really. See for example NVidia and their inability to use proper kernel APIs (DMA-BUF) for their optimus support because that API is GPLed and the kernel doesn't provide an exception for it, like it does for some other APIs:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTIwNDI

If the kernel actually was LGPL, they would be able to use that API.

If you read my original post, you would see that there was more to it than that:

The only thing you mentioned that is actually GPL licensed is the Linux kernel. For most practical purposes, a GPL licensed kernel is effectively the same as a GPL licensed kernel. The only differences occur when you want to distribute proprietary code as part of it or reuse code from it somewhere else.

The post to which you replied was a correction of a typo where I had said an obvious tautology. What I had said covered your Nvidia example.

[RealNC]

If you read my original post, you would see that there was more to it than that:

The post to which you replied was a correction of a typo where I had said an obvious tautology. What I had said covered your Nvidia example.

I don't see how. NVidia doesn't distribute the kernel nor do they use code from it. Also, if the kernel didn't specifically exclude userspace software from the GPL requirements, you couldn't even *run* non-GPL compatible software, because they invoke kernel routines similarly to using a GPL library. A GPL kernel is really not the same at all as an LGPL kernel.

[ryao]

I don't see how. NVidia doesn't distribute the kernel nor do they use code from it. Also, if the kernel didn't specifically exclude userspace software from the GPL requirements, you couldn't even *run* non-GPL compatible software, because they invoke kernel routines similarly to using a GPL library. A GPL kernel is really not the same at all as an LGPL kernel.

It is for most purposes. Anyway, my point was that using the kernel (and a ton of LGPL userland software) as examples of GPL software is not representation of GPL software in general. This discussion of Nvidia is tangential to that.

I will not clarify myself again.

[pingufunkybeat]

You were talking about GPL-licensed software and then cited LGPL licensed software. There is a difference.

I understood the discussion as being about strong copyleft licenses like the GPL and more permissive licenses like the BSD license. This is why I listed LGPL software too.

In any case... MPlayer is GPL. Gecko is GPL. Gnumeric is GPL. Abiword is GPL. LibreOffice was GPL (now LGPL). FFmpeg is GPL. x264 is GPL.

Some of them are also licensed under LGPL, MPL, or other licenses, but none of them is BSD.

The LGPL cannot be used to force a project to change licenses. That is something that Richard Stallman has done in the past with projects that depended upon GPL-licensed libraries. It is also why there are not many GPL-licensed libraries in use today.

Most people have agreed from the start that LGPL is a better choice for libraries. Even Stallman before he changed his mind.

Chrome is largely open source.

I think that you're missing my point. The most valuable part of Chrome is LGPL. There is no competitive BSD-licensed browser out there.

[LightBit]

Most people have agreed from the start that LGPL is a better choice for libraries. Even Stallman before he changed his mind.

LGPL is stupid, because it distinguish between static and dynamic linking.

If you want to avoid bureaucracy, permissive license is your best choice.

[jabl]

Gecko is GPL.

Gecko, and the rest of firefox (and thunderbird, and presumably the rest of mozilla software as well) is nowadays actually MPLv2. Prior to the MPLv2, they used a MPLv1/GPLv2+/LGPLv2.1+ tri-license.

LibreOffice was GPL (now LGPL).

I think libreoffice was LGPLv3 from the start, that was what Sun eventually relicenced OO.org as before the fork. Lately they've relicensed libreoffice to MPLv2 (by rebasing on top of the nowadays Apache-licensed Apache Openoffice), although for some reason the binaries they distribute are, for the time being at least, still LGPLv3.

[XorEaxEax]

Fluctuation? Nope.

That article uses the exact same blackducksoftware 'data' which you already linked to, pointless.

[XorEaxEax]

The LGPL cannot be used to force a project to change licenses. That is something that Richard Stallman has done in the past with projects that depended upon GPL-licensed libraries. It is also why there are not many GPL-licensed libraries in use today.

If a project uses a GPL licenced library then the rest of the project has to be using a GPL compatible licence, these are licence conditions, not something Richard Stallman personally enforces. Just like he can't force anyone to licence their code under GPL to begin with.

I certainly agree that libraries/components are a poor fit for GPL, in my opinon GPL serves it's purpose mainly when it comes to 'complete' works, like full applications/solutions. Incidentally this is also where GPL is most prevalent. Different licences serve different needs.

[yogi_berra]

If a project uses a GPL licenced library then the rest of the project has to be using a GPL compatible licence, these are licence conditions, not something Richard Stallman personally enforces.

Nope. The google/oracle java abi decision negated the need to use gpl just because you are using an abi.

[ryao]

I understood the discussion as being about strong copyleft licenses like the GPL and more permissive licenses like the BSD license. This is why I listed LGPL software too.

In any case... MPlayer is GPL. Gecko is GPL. Gnumeric is GPL. Abiword is GPL. LibreOffice was GPL (now LGPL). FFmpeg is GPL. x264 is GPL.

Some of them are also licensed under LGPL, MPL, or other licenses, but none of them is BSD.

Most people who dislike the GPL do not mind the LGPL. :/

If a project uses a GPL licenced library then the rest of the project has to be using a GPL compatible licence, these are licence conditions, not something Richard Stallman personally enforces. Just like he can't force anyone to licence their code under GPL to begin with.

I certainly agree that libraries/components are a poor fit for GPL, in my opinon GPL serves it's purpose mainly when it comes to 'complete' works, like full applications/solutions. Incidentally this is also where GPL is most prevalent. Different licences serve different needs.

Richard Stallman did personally enforce the GPL in at least one instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_rea...7s_GPL_license

The use of the GPL license for the readline library led to the creation of the editline library, which is a BSD-licensed drop-in replacement.