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 37242
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 01:46 UTC 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

RE[7]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 03:08 in reply to "RE[6]: "Freedom""
Member since:

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.

If by "commercial" you mean proprietary than what you want to do in that case is exactly what GPL shields us against. If we just allow mixing proprietary and Free Software like this, then soon there wont be much point in GPL and the Free Software movement in a whole.

Free Software, however, can be commercial at the same time when it's distributed for a price (e.g pay to download), but the freedoms always stay. When either of the four freedoms aren't ensured the software is actually proprietary. There is a difference between "proprietary" and "commercial".

I prefer licenses that protect the rights of people, not the rights of software.

It protects the rights of the people. I don't find much sense in the sarcasm I sense here, as software can't have rights. It is all about people, software users which are both developers and users (as developers use software to make software). As I said, it was developers who started the Free Software movement in the first place, because of themselves and their liberty.

Thank you
Daniel

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[7]: "Freedom"
by archiesteel on Wed 28th Sep 2005 05:41 in reply to "RE[6]: "Freedom""
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I'm talking about cases where I would like to turn existing GPL software into a GPL plugin for commercial applications.

There is a way to do this: simply ask the developer to release their code under a dual license: a GPL one for normal release and a LGPL one to be used as plugins. The LGPL could apply only to those portions of code used in the plug-in architecture. Why not try to make your case with them? After all, as copyright holders, they are free to relicense their software as they see fit!

However, that would require linking against the non-GPL SDK of these applications, which the GPL does not permit.

Actually, you can link to non-GPL SDK if they are GPL-compatible, such as the current BSD license.

Reply Parent Score: 1