Re: [Gnash] Gnash licensing

[Gervase Markham]

strk wrote:
> > As you may know, the FSF has previously claimed that the GPL and the MPL
> > are incompatible - that is, you cannot combine code under the two
> > licenses into the same binary and distribute it under GPL terms (as
> > required by the GPL). So, when the first release appears, Gnash will
> > only be distributable with Mozilla or Firefox when the relicensing
> > process is complete, and for distributors who choose to use the the GPL
> > terms.
>
> Good ! What prevents you from completing the process ?

We still need to obtain permission to relicence from a couple of 
remaining companies and individuals. We will be very happy when we are 
able to make this large contribution of GPL-compatible code to the GPL 
code pool. We know of several projects who wish to use our code with 
theirs, and look forward to making that possible.

> Just for completeness, here is another excerpt from the same 
> article of RMS (dated 1999):
>
> <<Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition
> an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute
> libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal
> to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use
> the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and
> it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting
> the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.>>

That part of the essay relates, I think, to libraries for which no 
proprietary alternative is available. It follows on from the paragraphs 
beginning "However, when a library provides a significant unique 
capability, like GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different color..." 
and "If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that 
have no parallel available to proprietary software, ...". These things 
are not true of Gnash.

I am not arguing for relicensing Gnash simply because that will lead to 
it having more users or more popularity. (If that were my goal, I would 
be arguing that you should licence it under BSD terms.) I am arguing for 
relicensing it because I think that more users will get given more free 
software and so have more freedom.

Gerv