Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 27th Sep 2005 22:40 UTC, submitted by Danijel Orsolic
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu "This follow-up to the previously published article 'Ubuntu: Derivative or Fork?' takes into account most of everything that has been posted as a reaction to the first article to present a general opinion and compare them with facts derived from various resouces. You'll see that peace can be achieved between these two, and ultimately any GNU/Linux group out there."
Thread beginning with comment 37237
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: "Freedom"
by stew on Wed 28th Sep 2005 01:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: "Freedom""
stew
Member since:
2005-07-06

"GPL was designed to prevent exactly that kind of thing from happening. It balances my freedom with yours instead of allowing my freedom to crossover yours."

That's what everyone claims about his license. Ask Apple or Sun what the intend of their open source licenses was.

Personally, I found that the GPL often did not allow me to do the things I needed - link against non-GPL code. To be precise, SDKs for non-GPL applications. The GPL prevents me from developing and distributing software because it defines freedom as "everything must be GPL'd". The LGPL, on the other hand, is allowing me to link it against SDKs of other licenses.

If the GPL stands for "preventing the creation of software that does not follow this license", I'm fine with that. Heck, I have released software under the GPL myself because I wanted the enforcement of shared source code. But please don't expect me to call this restriction "freedom" just because someone you do.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 01:46 in reply to "RE[4]: "Freedom""
Member since:

The LGPL, on the other hand, is allowing me to link it against SDKs of other licenses.

Then simply use LGPL. As long as people have the four freedoms I am all for it. BSD is in that sense a good choice for a license as well, although for me, not the best choice.

If the GPL stands for "preventing the creation of software that does not follow this license", I'm fine with that. Heck, I have released software under the GPL myself because I wanted the enforcement of shared source code. But please don't expect me to call this restriction "freedom" just because someone you do.

I'm not expecting that from you. That particular restriction has its role and it is further protecting the freedoms ensured by the license because, as it happens, the world still doesn't run on all monopoly free software. If it were, that restriction would probably be pointless. So, this restriction in itself is not the thing that gives you freedom as it merely protects it. It is the grant of those rights that the GPL provides, that gives you freedom.

Thanks
Daniel

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: "Freedom"
by stew on Wed 28th Sep 2005 02:54 in reply to "RE[5]: "Freedom""
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

"Then simply use LGPL."

Now I can't just turn GPL software in LGPL software, can I? I'm talking about cases where I would like to turn existing GPL software into a GPL plugin for commercial applications. However, that would require linking against the non-GPL SDK of these applications, which the GPL does not permit. In that regard, the GPL is valuing the freedom of the software more than the freedom of developers and imposing burdens on developers and users. I prefer licenses that protect the rights of people, not the rights of software.

Reply Parent Score: 1