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 37262
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: "Freedom"
by stew on Wed 28th Sep 2005 02:54 UTC 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[8]: "Freedom"
by stew on Wed 28th Sep 2005 03:26 in reply to "RE[7]: "Freedom""
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

"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."

Is BSD proprietary? Is Apache proprietary? No? So why does the GPL prevent me from linking against them? The FSF defines the original BSD and the Apache license as GPL incompatible, but Free (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicens... ).

Besides, I don't see what should be wrong with creating GPL plugins for non-GPL applications, especially if it's all about the people. Why would you want the people not to enjoy free plugins for commercial software?

Reply Parent Score: 1

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