Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
andrewj

The FSF and LGPLv3

Recommended Posts

Note: I didn't start this thread, this has been split off from a thread about a fairly new OPL3 emulator. --andrewj

MikeRS said:

The only problem with it being integrated with source ports is the license... they'll need to upgrade to GPLv3

What the hell?? If an LGPL library can be used by a closed-source program, why can't it be used by a GPLv2 (only or later) program?

(I'm trying to understand the text of the LGPLv3 right now, but not really succeeding...)

Man, the FSF folks have totally lost the plot, why the **** should you be required to including a copy of the normal GPL when using an LGPL library??

Share this post


Link to post

Because they are idiots, plain and simple.

Even the GPLv2 was more to push an agenda than anything else. A truly free license wouldn't have had some of the nonsense in there.

Just out of curiosity, what's your problem with the GPL v3? I must admit that most of its legalese makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
andrewj said:

What the hell?? If an LGPL library can be used by a closed-source program, why can't it be used by a GPLv2 (only or later) program?

(I'm trying to understand the text of the LGPLv3 right now, but not really succeeding...)

That's a good question, I might have been wrong about GPLv2 software not being able to use LGPLv3 libraries...

Man, the FSF folks have totally lost the plot, why the **** should you be required to including a copy of the normal GPL when using an LGPL library??

LGPLv3 is an extension to the GPLv3 rather than a stand-alone license. It does sound a little silly, but that's what it is...

Graf Zahl said:

Even the GPLv2 was more to push an agenda than anything else. A truly free license wouldn't have had some of the nonsense in there.

What nonsense are you specifically referring to? (I love it when people just make vague generalizations rather than making any real point.)

Share this post


Link to post
MikeRS said:

I love it when people just make vague generalizations rather than making any real point.


and we'll love it when you stop posting. you troll every chance you get.

out.

Share this post


Link to post
Graf Zahl said:

Just out of curiosity, what's your problem with the GPL v3? I must admit that most of its legalese makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Personally, I think the GPLv2 is a pretty good license. It makes sure that you share and share alike in a way that IMO is "fair" - ie. if you want to use GPLed code, release your own code too. Personally I don't want people using my work if they aren't prepared to contribute back as well.

The GPLv3 has some parts I like and some parts I definitely do not like. The software patent stuff is quite good - you have to grant a patent license if you have a patent covering some aspect of the program, so you can't go suing someone for using code that you open sourced. Again, this is fair.

The stuff I don't like are things like the "tivoization" clauses - ie. if you're a hardware manufacturer, you're essentially forced to make your hardware open and hackable if you use GPLv3 code in the firmware. This seems to me like a step too far.

There's even the Affero GPL which forces you to release the changes to modified versions of software used to power websites (where you can't normally see the code). Again, this seems like a step too far as well.

My general opinion is that the FSF have become far too extremist in their views and gone way off into the deep end. I certainly don't think they represent the majority of open source developers. Things like their obsession with language are frankly, irritating and counterproductive.

To give an example of this kind of extremism: a while back, I was considering moving some of my projects off Sourceforge. I decided to check out the FSF's "Savannah" site, which provides a similar set of services to Sourceforge; Freedoom is currently hosted there, for example. Now, the idea of Savannah is great, and exactly the kind of thing the FSF should do if it wants to promote free software - provide a service that supports developers who are writing free software. However, when I went to try to register a project, I encountered this. Essentially, if you don't follow their beliefs exactly and agree to do what they say, they will deny you hosting. Even though your project may be free software and using one of their own licenses, if you prefer to use "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux" or "open source" instead of "free software", they'll deny you hosting.

If you read the page in more detail, you'll see even more ridiculous things. Want to develop a free program that uses Flash? Denied. Want to develop a program that only runs under Windows? Denied. Want to mention that a piece of non-free software exists? Denied. Want to write a manual for your program and not use the GFDL? Denied.

This to me is where they've gone way off the deep end. They're so obsessed with their own ideology and politics that they've lost sight of their original goal - of promoting free software.

MikeRS said:

What nonsense are you specifically referring to? (I love it when people just make vague generalizations rather than making any real point.)

Csonicgo said:

and we'll love it when you stop posting. you troll every chance you get.

out.

I suggest to both of you that you keep this kind of bullshit out of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
MikeRS said:

What nonsense are you specifically referring to? (I love it when people just make vague generalizations rather than making any real point.)



I mean precisely the one clause in the GPL that's causing all the problems ZDoom has.

I find it ridiculous that they try to force their license on every code that comes in touch with it. This could have been done more intelligently so that programs that can't be fully 'free' according to the FSF aren't left in the dust and forced to use other incompatible licenses. But it's quite obvious that they didn't want this as it counteracts their ideology.

For example, why is it so bad to disallow linking to non-free libraries (like FMOD) in general? Can't this be worded a bit more flexibly? After all, my code is still supposed to be free and no library that comes in touch with it can change that but the FSF does precisely that with their license.

Another thing that irks me is the 'must be commercially exploitable' clause. Along with the thing mentioned above this is the second biggest obstacle with it.

And Fraggle's information about the GPLv3 just confirms that they are relentlessly marching on on their crusade to promote their ideology. Those 2 pages you linked to would be hilarious if it wasn't abundantly clear that these people were serious. Propaganda for a good thing is still propaganda - and that's all these pages show...

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

My general opinion is that the FSF have become far too extremist in their views and gone way off into the deep end. I certainly don't think they represent the majority of open source developers. Things like their obsession with language are frankly, irritating and counterproductive.

...

This to me is where they've gone way off the deep end. They're so obsessed with their own ideology and politics that they've lost sight of their original goal - of promoting free software.


Excellent post fraggle, I am 100% agreeing with you. Recently I also tried to register a project on Savannah, and apart from the annoying delay (6 weeks!) the approval was blocked due a couple things like not using commas instead of hyphens in the copyright years. Extremism is exactly the word for it. Bleh!

Share this post


Link to post

Graf Zahl said:
For example, why is it so bad to disallow linking to non-free libraries (like FMOD) in general? Can't this be worded a bit more flexibly?

The program becomes dependent on proprietary software, and if you allow that as an option, and the proprietary base starts being more practical than the free options, you kill the focus on free software.

Imagine this scenario:
Some guy comes and says "hey, I'm using SDL for your program and sound doesn't work" and the developer says "ah well, use FMOD instead, it's supported... maybe I'll fix the SDL issue sometime, if I have time. But who cares? It works!" Magnify that a few times in both subtle and concrete ways.

The FSF may be hitting water on some of its assessments, but ideology is pretty important.

cybdmn said:
I've read that and was remembered instantly to that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTI_-_Lingua_Tertii_Imperii

Except what fraggle linked mainly emphasizes ideology in an explicit way while, rather contrarily, the Nazis objectified theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

Things like their obsession with language are frankly, irritating and counterproductive.

What a bunch of hypocritical asses. Amidst a sea of "it's disrespectful to call GNU/Linux Linux", they're giving "cute" little monikers (like "water closet" or "unidentified flying object") to everything they dislike. Their attempt to shape language looks like they read the appendices to Nineteen Eighty Four and decided they would use that. (LTI is a nice reference too. Thanks cybdmn.)

Also, their suggestion to give TeX to people accustomed to work with PowerPoint is incredibly funny.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

if you allow that as an option, and the proprietary base starts being more practical than the free options, you kill the focus on free software.


This is exactly what's happening. Let's take this from a business perspective.

Proprietary stuff is usually backed up with support teams, better organization, and increased reliability( After all, most would be charging for it, as fmod does for consoles). If companies offered an inferior product compared to a free alternative, chances are they wouldn't be around very long. combining this with the promise of support and many other niceties, and the proprietary choice seems to be the obviously safer choice. Not to mention that some even have a policy similar to a warranty to repair damage from their products--whatever that may be. That's nearly impossible to compete with. Add this with the infighting in the FOSS movement as a whole, and you end up with proprietary technologies running the ball into the endzone while FOSS is fistfighting in the locker room--- when there shouldn't be a game taking place at all. That is due to the US vs. THEM mentality and RMS himself is the most guilty of this.

And if the business is running free software-- and are bound by these arcane guidelines ---lest they face the fury of internet trolls and maybe some effigy of the CEO burning at MIT somewhere, Why would they even bother using it? Would they face legal action by the FSF or EFF for just trying to save money? This just baffles me to no end.

Gez said:

What a bunch of hypocritical asses. Amidst a sea of "it's disrespectful to call GNU/Linux Linux", they're giving "cute" little monikers (like "water closet" or "unidentified flying object") to everything they dislike.


RMS is guilty of this yet again: he harassed mingw and related projects to stop using -win32 as a parameter because it implies "windows is win". I'm not making this shit up. In the same post he states MS is "the enemy" and references "losedows" and many other bullshit playground names. Childishness at its best. Here are some choice quotes from the man himself. note: this is REAL.

> The word "win", in hacker parlance, is a term of praise.
> Instead of naming an option `--win32', how about calling it
> `--windows32', to avoid calling Losedows a "win"?


Those people are doing something unethical, and the name they chose is
designed to help them succeed. If we use their names, we will hinder them.
Ridiculing the name of a project is a time-honored way to do that.

After all, we're always bashing MS for ignoring the standards and making
up its own new way of doing things to suit itself and its own interests
regardless of the needs of the wider community.

I criticize Microsoft for making software that isn't free.
Those other things are secondary issues. And in fact they
do not call our work by its right name. They call free software
"open source", and they call the GNU system "Linux".

...There is a more important kind of
good at stake here: the one that's the opposite of evil. Proprietary
programs trample the user's freedom. The purpose of GCC, the reason I
wrote it, is to enable us to escape from use of non-free compilers.
That was one step towards using computers in freedom. After that step
and many other steps, some of us now use systems and applications that
are entirely free.

Calling programs by the names their developers chose is an example of
the respect that we give to our legitimate competitors. But
proprietary software is not legitimate, and our opposition to it is
not competition. We don't say, "May the most useful product win!" We
say, "May freedom win!"


Names such as `--w32' and `--windows32' do not ridicule Windows, they
only decline to praise it. That's all I mean to ask for.


When he was called OUT on this bullshit he writes this:

"WIN32" *never* meant "Windows is a
win!"


It did for me, as soon as I saw the abbreviation. Saying "what a win"
to praise something was very common in the old days.

In effect, you created the association by
claiming the association needs to be fought, for it didn't exist prior
to your crusade.


It may have been new to you, but I certainly didn't create it.

Perhaps that implication doesn't occur to most hackers these days;
perhaps that usage of "win" is gone. If so, the issue may be obsolete.
But I would want to check that somehow. I am not sure what you
searched for in Google, so I cannot judge what conclusion follows
from your not finding it.


When you see the man as he really is, he becomes less of a beacon of hope for Free software and more of a zealot.

Share this post


Link to post
Graf Zahl said:

For example, why is it so bad to disallow linking to non-free libraries (like FMOD) in general?

Because then a company could take a GPL'd program, extend it with their own goodies, but keep those goodies closed source by putting it all in a library.

Share this post


Link to post
andrewj said:

Because then a company could take a GPL'd program, extend it with their own goodies, but keep those goodies closed source by putting it all in a library.


Yes, but couldn't they have done that beforehand with all-original code? what about code that is universal to various programs (Such as VST libraries for Audio programs)?

Share this post


Link to post
andrewj said:

Because then a company could take a GPL'd program, extend it with their own goodies, but keep those goodies closed source by putting it all in a library.


Meh, and the harm in that is? They'd have to keep their API open so that the library interfaces with the program, and the program stays GPL. This would open the door to making clones of said library, and reverse-engineer it much more easily than if it was just a chunk of a proprietary software. That would be a cumbersome, unreliable and self-defeating way to transform an open source software into a closed source one.

In other words, it's complete paranoia. I agree with the FSF on many points, but their cultist mentality is disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
andrewj said:

Because then a company could take a GPL'd program, extend it with their own goodies, but keep those goodies closed source by putting it all in a library.


You could prevent that by a 'no commercial exploitation or full source release' clause.

It's not that the GPL is worded like it is for practical reasons. It's all ideology and pushing am agenda.

Share this post


Link to post

Gez said:
This would open the door to making clones of said library, and reverse-engineer it much more easily than if it was just a chunk of a proprietary software.

And potentially derivative ones, at that.

Many complaints against the free software philosophy are very practical, but the FSF constantly reminds you efficiency and immediate practical use don't naturally lead to free software. Open source software is a middle ground choice and probably better for many things, but without free software, it'd become an even less independent appendage of proprietary software.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

And potentially derivative ones, at that.


Which would not be a concern, seeing that the released source is licensed under the GPL - including the interface.

The bottom line remains: The way the FSF is promoting free software doesn't work. If you approach things as an absolute you are always going to fail. Just having a look at the self-destructive tendencies within the 'community' should be warning enough.

Also, the GPL doesn't prevent commercial abuse of GPL code. You only have to know how to do it without getting into conflict with the license. Just look at MacOS for a very bad example. Somewhere in there there's enough GPL code that saved Apple a lot of work and yet they managed to release something that's not even remotely free.

Share this post


Link to post

Graf Zahl said:
Which would not be a concern, seeing that the released source is licensed under the GPL - including the interface.

That's convenient until you find that the mass of available libraries for that source is proprietary, derivative or unsupported.

Share this post


Link to post

Graf Zahl said:
For example, why is it so bad to disallow linking to non-free libraries (like FMOD) in general?

This never really made sense to me. Suppose someone takes a BSD-licensed program and adds readline support to it in such a way that it could be compiled against either readline (which is GPL, not LGPL) or libedit with readline-compatibility (which is from NetBSD and I believe currently under a 2-clause BSD license). I guess Stallman would want the resulting code released under the GPL, but someone could just recompile it against libedit. In the latter case, all parts of the program are under a BSD license and the library it links to is under a BSD license, but it could be compiled against a GPL-only library. Is there still a requirement to release it as GPL?

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

Meh, and the harm in that is?

The whole point of the GPL, and the thing that makes it different from any other license, is to force improvements to a program to be shared.

Share this post


Link to post
andrewj said:

The whole point of the GPL, and the thing that makes it different from any other license, is to force improvements to a program to be shared.


And for doing so, it has conditions so stringent that it makes it an undesirable license for many uses.

For example, let's imagine an application that is linked to a proprietary library such as FMOD. Let's suppose that FMOD was chosen because it offers features that are not found in its open-source equivalents, be they OpenAL, SDL, Allegro or whatever. Let's even say that the program is merely a wrapper for that library, intended precisely to use this feature that the FOSS competition does not offer. Since this is a non-free software library, the program cannot be licensed under the GPL. Since it cannot be GPL, looking at the CLISP example given in a previous link, it is necessary that the program might not link with any GPL library, since if it can link against a GPL library it is automatically GPL and therefore has to remove support for FMOD, making the program meaningless and useless.

I'm 100% for free software, but the FSF, in its extremism, does more harm than good to its cause. The GPL is supposed to give all coders free and easy access to source code, so that everyone might benefit from this; but in reality what it does is turn coders into lawyerism and vigilitantism and it creates license conflicts that complicate everyone's life.

Hey, and the FSF itself says that free software is not about making programs better. It's not about sharing improvements, multiplying code reviews, facilitating contributions from third parties and all that. All these things are practical advantages to open source, which misses the FSF's point. Free software is not open source, even if technically it is. The aim of the GPL is not about improving software, it's about the relationship between a program's authors or rightholders and the rest of the world. It's on an ethical, not a technical, point.

Share this post


Link to post

Open source is great and all but alot of the open source fanatics are crazy and should be avoided. They take it too far and actually remove the freedom of others (it's a programmers right to choose their own license and they want to restrict that right). The WTFPL I believe would allow you to link to any library of any kind, open or close the source, no restrictions at all. But then you could change the license since you could do anything. I use Linux (I didn't say GNU/Linux) because I like it and I can do whatever, nothing is hidden OS wise or watered down. But I also use Windows.

I find it funny how Free Software wants to limit language and such. Words such as Photoshopped or Powerpoint presentation. Everyone here calls cotton swabs Q-Tips, for every single brand (the companies don't call it that but the people do), same goes for Kleenex, Coke, Pop-tart, etc. If you walk up to someone and say "I made a LaTeX Presentation", do you mean you are presenting Latex Gloves/Products?

Personally I choose to write closed source programs over open source programs.

SourceForge is great and does everything I need and has no real restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Csonicgo said:

We don't say, "May the most useful product win!" We
say, "May freedom win!"

This is why I don't use Linux.

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't read the gplv3 and have no interest in doing so, but for those who have read it, could you care to answer some questions I have?

1) If a library (such as SDL) were to switch to LGPLv3, would that mean it cannot link with system libraries (like windows ones, such as msvcrt.dll, which is closed source)? or use functions contained in such libraries
2) Can a program which is licensed under GPLv3 use SDL (LGPLv2)? If so, does it mean it creates a loophole because it uses system libraries?
3) Do projects that switch to GPLv3 that include GPLv2 code from other projects still remain GPLv2 or does it get automatically included as GPLv3? which means they cannot contribute back the changes to improving the GPLv2 code of the other project, especially if (or not) their changes are licensed as GPLv3 and therefore create a conflict. (I'm guessing this is up to the license holder of the GPLv3 project)

Sorry I'm all a bit fuzzy on this

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

And for doing so, it has conditions so stringent that it makes it an undesirable license for many uses.

So don't use it then. Nobody has a gun to your head forcing you to write or modify GPL programs.

I think a lot of programmers get their panties in a twist about the GPL because there is a lot of GPL code floating around, nice juicy stuff that they'd like to put into their own software (be it commercial or otherwise), and the license prevents them from doing so.

@RTC_Marine: at the bottom of this page is the GPL compatibility matrix
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html
You need to separate GPLv2 into two, the one that says "and any later version" (which of course is compatible with GPLv3) and "v2 only" which is not. I haven't read GPLv3 so can't answer #1.

Share this post


Link to post

andrewj said:
Nobody has a gun to your head forcing you to write or modify GPL programs.

Don't give the FSF any ideas...

Share this post


Link to post
andrewj said:

I think a lot of programmers get their panties in a twist about the GPL because there is a lot of GPL code floating around, nice juicy stuff that they'd like to put into their own software (be it commercial or otherwise), and the license prevents them from doing so.


That may be true. And some of that code becomes useless due to the license. What good is some library code that can't be [u]freely[/b] used? Anwer: None at all! It limits itself to a small niche of software instead of becoming a standard.

But my main problem with the GPL is not the inability to use some code. Quite the contrary. It's the inability to license my code under the GPL because then I couldn't use it myself anymore for the things I'd need itl.


As I said before: It could have made some exceptions. Two precisely:

- the ability to freely link to sources that do not allow commercial exploitation but aside from that single clause could be considered 'free' as interpreted by the FSF. The explicit non-revokable right to commercial use given in the GPL is the sole reason why many programmers don't use it and this is the single biggest problem of open source development.

- the ability to link to third party closed source libraries under some strict conditions, including non-commercial use of such combinations and non-involvement of the library's creator in the project itself (to avoid conflicts of interest.)

The result wouldn't have been a weaker license but quite the contrary. If more code could be placed under a relatively strict Open Source license it would be a gain for everybody. I personally think the LGPL is much more sane and for the GPL I would have preferred something similar with only a few added restrictions.

But as I and others said before: The goal of the FSF is not to promote Open Source. Their goal is to promote socialist software development. Because all things considered that's precisely to what their position translates to. And under that position anything not complying with their agenda is 'evil' and must be kept out at all costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Graf Zahl said:

But my main problem with the GPL is not the inability to use some code. Quite the contrary. It's the inability to license my code under the GPL because then I couldn't use it myself anymore for the things I'd need itl.

This is just not true. You are the copyright holder of your own code, and the terms of the license you impose on others does not actually apply to you. How else do you think MySQL comes in both GPL'd and propetiary versions (or VirtualBox, for another example)?

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×