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 37267
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 03:08 UTC 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[9]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 04:01 in reply to "RE[8]: "Freedom""
Member since:

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..... ).

Licenses like BSD and Apache are indeed Free Software licenses and in that sense I wouldn't see a problem if GPL would allow linking to them. However, how can you achieve that without completely removing the whole viral (share alike) requirement from the license and thus allowing mixing proprietary and Free Software.

There is a modified BSD that is compatible with GPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

The modified BSD license is an example of a good way this inter-free software incompatibility can be resolved. GPL is the most popular Free Software license after all, practically a standard, so it only makes sense that, for their own interest if nothing else, they modify their own licenses to interoperate with GPL.

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.

I don't need to repeat myself. Mixing proprietary and Free Software is against the goals of the Free Software Foundation and the movement that it supports. The goal is to ensure that people can use their computers in liberty. Allowing mixing of proprietary and Free Software would be detrimental to this goal. In the end, popularity of GPL speaks for itself.

[i]Why would you want the people not to enjoy free plugins for commercial software?


I wont fall for this. People don't enjoy lock ins (some get around it by breaking copyright law and others just don't know better like "it's the way it is and should be"). So what's the point in providing free (as in freedom) software plugins for an unfree application, since the whole point behind Free Software is freedom and those users aren't really any more free by having a free plug in attached to an unfree application.

For those having a fobia against the word "freedom", try "liberty". But seriously, what's up with you guys? Why are you on a site about *alternative* browsers when there is "such a great OS" outthere called Microsoft Windows? What? You don't like the monopoly and it's consequences? But you somehow still fear "freedom".

What has this world become when people actually have aversions against something people have fought wars to have in the past.

If you think it's meaningless, maybe it's because your values are meaningless, or you don't value anything at all.

Thanks
Daniel

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: "Freedom"
by on Wed 28th Sep 2005 04:05 in reply to "RE[8]: "Freedom""
Member since:

Stew, I think your beef is with the developer(s) of the software you would like to use for your application. They were the ones who chose the GPL, remember? The point of the GPL isn't to make life and work easier for you, it was to encourage open and rapid code exchange. Whining to the open source community about not being allowed to link someone else's code to the proprietary application you want is childish to say the least. Nobody owes you anything. If you want "the people" to enjoy your free plugins for commercial applications, write them yourself and place them under whatever license you see fit.

Welcome to life: you have to give a little to take a little.

Reply Parent Score: 1