Re: [Gnash] Gnash licensing

[strk]

> Organization: mozilla.org
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051201)
> To: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> Cc: Frank Hecker <address@hidden>
> Subject: [Gnash] Gnash licensing
> 
> Dear GNU, and the Gnash team,
> 
> We are writing to you about the license of "Gnash", your free
> replacement for the Macromedia Flash browser plugin.
> 
> The Mozilla codebase, including the Mozilla and Firefox browsers, are
> licensed under the Mozilla Public Licence (MPL). We have previously
> announced our intention to offer MPL-licensed Mozilla code under the GPL
> and LGPL as well; we are well along the way to accomplishing this, but
> the process is not yet complete. We hope to complete it soon, and give
> users a choice of using our code under any one of the three licences.
> 
> 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 are writing to request that the Free Software Foundation consider
> changing the license of Gnash from the GPL to the LGPL, to allow it to
> be bundled with Mozilla-based browsers where distributors are using the
> MPL terms.
>
> Why would you want to do that? Here are some points to consider:
> 
> As outlined above, if Gnash is licensed under the GPL then it can be
> bundled only with browsers 100% licensable under the GPL. This means
> that, even when combined with a GPLed browser, all other bundled plugins
> have to be GPL-licensable as well, which might be a problem for
> distributors in cases where no free software plugin yet exists as a
> replacement for a non-free one. In this case, they may well choose to
> use the MPL terms, and bundle the Macromedia Flash plugin instead of
> Gnash. The result would IMO be a delay in the acceptance and use of
> Gnash, to its detriment, and lead to a user being given non-free
> software instead of free software.

Users are not passive consumers.
They can choose what browser, distribution or plugin to use.
Nothing prevents them from downloading a proprietary plugin and
link it against a free browser, nor downloading a free plugin
and link it against a non-free browser. As far as they do not
redistribute the boundle, that's fine.

The only thing to Gnash detriment would be lack of good developers
working on it. Lack of broad acceptance is not to detriment of freedom.

The GNU project has never been on rush.

There's an old saying in Rome: "la gatta presciolosa fece li fiji cechi"
(the cat on rush gave born to blind kitties)

> On the other hand, licensing Gnash and other free software plugins under
> the LGPL supports a strategy of incrementally replacing non-free plugins
> with free ones. Speaking personally I think this strategy is better
> suited to promoting the cause of free software.

I don't want to force anybody in using free software.
Anyone has the freedom to choose its own jail.
The cause of free software is Freedom, not computers colonization.

> RMS explains the logic used about whether to licence under the GPL or
> LGPL here:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
> 
> "There are reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in
> certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features
> are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative
> libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any
> particular advantage, so it is better to use the Library GPL for that
> library."
> 
> Gnash falls into this category - the features are readily available in
> the standard Macromedia Flash plugin. So, we submit, it is better to use
> the LGPL for Gnash.

There's too much free (as in beer) software for proprietary software
vendors already. I wouldn't like Gnash to be added to the pile.

Gnash will be *better* then the MM plugin, which is known to have
many limitations (the insecurity model, rendering bugs, lack of
a debugger, and most of all lack of freedom to fix it, adapt it,
share it with others).

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.>>

> Thank you for considering our request.
> 
> Gerv
> (on behalf of The Mozilla Foundation)

--strk(on behalf of himself);