[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Please, no GitHub

From: Riccardo Mottola
Subject: Re: Please, no GitHub
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 11:13:27 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0 SeaMonkey/2.39


while this is getting a GPL discussion, and thus a bit off-topic, it hits a sore point.

Gregory Casamento wrote:
I'm wondering where you get this impression.  GPLv3 is not being
avoided by any means:

GPLv3 is being laregely adopted, however "being avoided" is also true: not in terms of programs using it, but in terms of Projects and people actively rejecting stuff in GPLv3.

One of the Clang vs GCC discussion points is a license problem: the BSD people actively reject stuff in the core system if GPLv3! Not my point debating why, I never understood it fully, but it is so. Companies and others have a similar attitude.

Just a couple of weeks ago I have been contacted off-list to change the license of certain GNUstep applications. I replied with a clear no, but the "question" or "problem" still remains for certain people.

A person is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.
The fact of the matter is, GPLv3 is extremely relevant when it comes
to fighting patents as well as many other things.   While I,
personally, am no fan of it's incompatibility with GPLv2 (as it
adversely impacts some GNUstep apps due to those authors being
unwilling to re-license or even add a "or later") I do understand what
it's purpose is and why it's important.   So, please, don't lie to
yourself or spread misinformation about it being a "thing of the past"
as it certainly isn't.

The incompatibility is sadly a problem and I would have preferred the FSF being more cautious there. It creates problems with distributions like it happened in Debian. Two important pieces of code which do not have the "later" clause can't be re-licensed because they are not under the GNUstep umbrella, so it is not a problem of the "authors being unwilling". I also may add that in one case, as we discussed in Dublin, there is a new library being dual-licensed with the or-later clause but the changes are so significant that I was up to now able to adopt it. But now we are really going off-topic. These license issues are important though because they impact both the audience programs reach as well as potential exploitation, they shouldn't be dismissed easily.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]