From thallgren@yahoo.com Mon May 8 20:57:01 2000 Received: from web111.yahoomail.com (web111.yahoomail.com [205.180.60.81]) by knight.cons.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA08022 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 20:56:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 6422 invoked by uid 60001); 8 May 2000 18:56:40 -0000 Message-ID: <20000508185640.6421.qmail@web111.yahoomail.com> Received: from [212.75.66.20] by web111.yahoomail.com; Mon, 08 May 2000 11:56:40 PDT Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 11:56:40 -0700 (PDT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Tommy=20Hallgren?= Subject: Re: GPL To: Majid Faraj-Allah , bus@stacken.kth.se Cc: cracauer@cons.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 1056 Lines: 37 Yes, it's interesting, but Martin is a bit wrong, KDE is licensed under LGPL, not GPL as he writes. From the KDE FAQ: http://www.kde.org/documentation/faq/kdefaq-2.html#ss2.6 Yes, KDE is free software according to the GNU General Public License. All KDE libraries are available under the LGPL making commercial software development for the KDE desktop possible, all KDE applications are licensed under the GPL. Regards, Tommy 'd-bug@#bsdcode' Hallgren --- Majid Faraj-Allah skrev: > Lite intressant läsning: > http://www.cons.org/cracauer/gpl.html > MVH Majid > > ( > GPG/PGP @ www.watson.org/~majidf > email: majidf@fledge.watson.org, > majidf@xuurs > finger: majidf@fledge > ) > ===== Tommy Hallgren(tommy@frontpartner.com) Riksdalersg. 23a, SE-414 81, Göteborg Tel.: +46 (0)709 - 312 404 (GSM) Send me the pillow you dream on __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ From cracauer Mon May 8 22:06:04 2000 Received: (from cracauer@localhost) by knight.cons.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA08724; Mon, 8 May 2000 22:05:40 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 22:05:39 +0200 From: Martin Cracauer To: Tommy Hallgren Cc: Majid Faraj-Allah , bus@stacken.kth.se, cracauer@cons.org Subject: Re: GPL Message-ID: <20000508220539.A8709@cons.org> References: <20000508185640.6421.qmail@web111.yahoomail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <20000508185640.6421.qmail@web111.yahoomail.com>; from thallgren@yahoo.com on Mon, May 08, 2000 at 11:56:40AM -0700 Status: RO Content-Length: 1869 Lines: 52 In <20000508185640.6421.qmail@web111.yahoomail.com>, Tommy Hallgren wrote: > Yes, it's interesting, but Martin is a bit wrong, KDE is licensed under LGPL, > not GPL as he writes. From the KDE FAQ: > > http://www.kde.org/documentation/faq/kdefaq-2.html#ss2.6 > > > Yes, KDE is free software according to the GNU General Public License. All KDE > libraries are available under the LGPL making commercial software development > for the KDE desktop possible, all KDE applications are licensed under the GPL. > So KDE applications are under the GPL, not LGPL. And if you take a GPL'ed application and want to make a KDE version, where KDE requires a library (qt) that is not compatible with the GPL, you would loose even if normal KDE applications where LGPLed. It's the whole point of the web page: once you have *one* part under the GPL, it doesn't matter how many of all the parts are, you loose in any case that requires a little bit of incompatible licensed software. > Regards, Tommy 'd-bug@#bsdcode' Hallgren > > --- Majid Faraj-Allah skrev: > > Lite intressant läsning: > > http://www.cons.org/cracauer/gpl.html > > MVH Majid > > > > ( > > GPG/PGP @ www.watson.org/~majidf > > email: majidf@fledge.watson.org, > > majidf@xuurs > > finger: majidf@fledge > > ) > > > > ===== > Tommy Hallgren(tommy@frontpartner.com) > Riksdalersg. 23a, SE-414 81, Göteborg > Tel.: +46 (0)709 - 312 404 (GSM) > > Send me the pillow you dream on > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. > http://im.yahoo.com/ -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ Tel.: (private) +4940 5221829 Fax.: (private) +4940 5228536 From kaj@e.kth.se Tue May 9 12:18:53 2000 Received: from elixir.e.kth.se (IDENT:1073744992@elixir.e.kth.se [130.237.48.5]) by knight.cons.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18406 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 12:18:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from alumoklyuchevskit.e.kth.se (morran.e.kth.se [130.237.48.15]) by elixir.e.kth.se (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11199; Tue, 9 May 2000 12:16:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from kaj@localhost) by alumoklyuchevskit.e.kth.se (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA20581; Tue, 9 May 2000 12:16:54 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: alumoklyuchevskit.e.kth.se: kaj set sender to kaj@e.kth.se using -f Sender: kaj@e.kth.se To: Martin Cracauer Cc: Tommy Hallgren , Majid Faraj-Allah , bus@stacken.kth.se Subject: Re: GPL References: <20000508185640.6421.qmail@web111.yahoomail.com> <20000508220539.A8709@cons.org> From: Rasmus Kaj Cc: Rasmus Kaj Organization: Raditex AB - http://Raditex.se/ Date: 09 May 2000 12:16:54 +0200 In-Reply-To: Martin Cracauer's message of "Mon, 8 May 2000 22:05:39 +0200" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by knight.cons.org id MAA18406 Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 2255 Lines: 45 >>>>> "MC" == Martin Cracauer writes: >>>>> "FAQ" == KDE FAQ, citerad av Tommy Hallgren: >>>>> http://www.kde.org/documentation/faq/kdefaq-2.html#ss2.6 FAQ> Yes, KDE is free software according to the GNU General Public FAQ> License. All KDE libraries are available under the LGPL making FAQ> commercial software development for the KDE desktop possible, FAQ> all KDE applications are licensed under the GPL. MC> So KDE applications are under the GPL, not LGPL. And if you take a MC> GPL'ed application and want to make a KDE version, where KDE requires MC> a library (qt) that is not compatible with the GPL, you would loose MC> even if normal KDE applications where LGPLed. (eftersom det här är buslistan svarar jag på svenska) GPL "smittar" bara åt ena hållet. Att man använder ett bibliotek för att bygga en applikation som man GPLar innebär _inte_ att biblioteket måste vara (eller blir) GPL. Och eftersom biblioteken (i KDE) har LGPL i stället för GPL kan man skriva icke-GPL applikationer som passar in i KDE (att de säger "all KDE applications are licensed under the GPL" i FAQen innebär, om det betyder något överhuvudtaget, bara att man inte kan kalla sin applikation för en "KDE application" om den inte är GPL). MC> It's the whole point of the web page: once you have *one* part under MC> the GPL, it doesn't matter how many of all the parts are, you loose in MC> any case that requires a little bit of incompatible licensed software. Det där kan vara helt korrekt eller uppåt väggarna fel, beroende på vad du menar med "part". Att använda färdiga program smittar inte, och bibliotek bör vara (och är oftast) LGPL, så de smittar inte heller om man använder dem på rätt sätt. Det finns aldeles för många som skriver en massa strunt om GPL utan att veta riktigt vad det är frågan om ... Sedan föredrar jag ändå BSD (eller "Beerware"), eftersom man kan begripa hur de licenserna fungerar utan att läsa hela böcker (eller rejält långa textmassor på t ex http://www.gnu.org/ ) om dem. -- Rasmus Kaj ---------------- rasmus@kaj.a.se - http://www.e.kth.se/~kaj/ \ Microsoft: How long do U want to wait today? \--------------------------------------------- http://www.Raditex.se/ From cracauer Tue May 9 19:27:43 2000 Received: (from cracauer@localhost) by knight.cons.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA22527; Tue, 9 May 2000 19:27:40 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 19:27:39 +0200 From: Martin Cracauer To: Rasmus Kaj Cc: Martin Cracauer , Tommy Hallgren , Majid Faraj-Allah , bus@stacken.kth.se Subject: Re: GPL Message-ID: <20000509192739.A22514@cons.org> References: <20000508185640.6421.qmail@web111.yahoomail.com> <20000508220539.A8709@cons.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: ; from kaj@Raditex.se on Tue, May 09, 2000 at 12:16:54PM +0200 Status: RO Content-Length: 1301 Lines: 29 In , Rasmus Kaj wrote: > >>>>> "MC" == Martin Cracauer writes: > > >>>>> "FAQ" == KDE FAQ, citerad av Tommy Hallgren: > >>>>> http://www.kde.org/documentation/faq/kdefaq-2.html#ss2.6 > > FAQ> Yes, KDE is free software according to the GNU General Public > FAQ> License. All KDE libraries are available under the LGPL making > FAQ> commercial software development for the KDE desktop possible, > FAQ> all KDE applications are licensed under the GPL. > > MC> So KDE applications are under the GPL, not LGPL. And if you take a > MC> GPL'ed application and want to make a KDE version, where KDE requires > MC> a library (qt) that is not compatible with the GPL, you would loose > MC> even if normal KDE applications where LGPLed. > > (eftersom det här är buslistan svarar jag på svenska) > > GPL "smittar" bara åt ena hållet. Att man använder ett bibliotek för > att bygga en applikation som man GPLar innebär _inte_ att biblioteket > måste vara (eller blir) GPL. Could you please reply in english (or German) to me? Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ Tel.: (private) +4940 5221829 Fax.: (private) +4940 5228536 From kaj@raditex.se Tue May 9 21:58:21 2000 Received: from raditex.se (gandalf.raditex.se [192.5.36.18]) by knight.cons.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA24306 for ; Tue, 9 May 2000 21:58:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kaj@localhost) by raditex.se (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA55092; Tue, 9 May 2000 21:58:10 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kaj@raditex.se) X-Authentication-Warning: frodo.sickla.raditex.se: kaj set sender to kaj@raditex.se using -f Sender: kaj@frodo.sickla.raditex.se To: Martin Cracauer Cc: Tommy Hallgren , Majid Faraj-Allah , bus@stacken.kth.se Subject: Re: GPL References: <20000508185640.6421.qmail@web111.yahoomail.com> <20000508220539.A8709@cons.org> <20000509192739.A22514@cons.org> From: Rasmus Kaj Cc: Rasmus Kaj Organization: Raditex AB - http://Raditex.se/ Date: 09 May 2000 21:58:10 +0200 In-Reply-To: Martin Cracauer's message of "Tue, 9 May 2000 19:27:39 +0200" Message-ID: <848zxjjy25.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se> User-Agent: Gnus/5.0806 (Gnus v5.8.6) XEmacs/20.4 (Emerald) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 2351 Lines: 52 >>>>> "MC" == Martin Cracauer writes: MC> Could you please reply in english (or German) to me? Oh, so there was someone who don't speak Swedish around. Sorry. Here comes a translation of what I said to English (I don't speak german). Here's the quote from the KDE FAQ again: FAQ> Yes, KDE is free software according to the GNU General Public FAQ> License. All KDE libraries are available under the LGPL making FAQ> commercial software development for the KDE desktop possible, FAQ> all KDE applications are licensed under the GPL. And your text: MC> So KDE applications are under the GPL, not LGPL. And if you take a MC> GPL'ed application and want to make a KDE version, where KDE requires MC> a library (qt) that is not compatible with the GPL, you would loose MC> even if normal KDE applications where LGPLed. And what I said: GPL is only "viral" in one way. To use a library to make a GPL'ed application don't means the library must be (or becomes) under the GPL. Since the libraries (in KDE) uses LGPL rather than GPL it's possible to write non-GPL applications which fit in the KDE framework (that they say "all KDE applications are licensed under the GPL" in the FAQ means, in anything, that you can't call your program a "KDE application" unless it's GPL. MC> It's the whole point of the web page: once you have *one* part under MC> the GPL, it doesn't matter how many of all the parts are, you loose in MC> any case that requires a little bit of incompatible licensed software. That can be either quite correct or complete rubbish, depending on what you mean when you say "part". To use a complete program isn't infectious. Libraries should be (and usually is) LGPL, so they don't pass on the virus either, as long as you use them as libraries. There's way to many people writing loads of text about the GPL without quite grokking it (and after this, I seem to be one of them) ... That said, I still prefer the BSD (or even "Beerware") license, since it's possible to know how they work without reading entire books (or massive texts at e.g. http://www.gnu.org/ ) about it. -- Rasmus Kaj ------------------ rasmus@kaj.a.se - http://Raditex.se/~kaj/ \ Never try to outstubborn a cat -Lazarus Long \------------------------------------------------- http://Raditex.se/ From cracauer Wed May 10 08:51:20 2000 Received: (from cracauer@localhost) by knight.cons.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA02302; Wed, 10 May 2000 08:51:17 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:51:17 +0200 From: Martin Cracauer To: Rasmus Kaj Cc: Martin Cracauer , Tommy Hallgren , Majid Faraj-Allah , bus@stacken.kth.se Subject: Re: GPL Message-ID: <20000510085116.A1854@cons.org> References: <20000508185640.6421.qmail@web111.yahoomail.com> <20000508220539.A8709@cons.org> <20000509192739.A22514@cons.org> <848zxjjy25.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <848zxjjy25.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se>; from kaj@raditex.se on Tue, May 09, 2000 at 09:58:10PM +0200 Status: RO Content-Length: 5417 Lines: 119 In <848zxjjy25.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se>, Rasmus Kaj wrote: > >>>>> "MC" == Martin Cracauer writes: > > MC> Could you please reply in english (or German) to me? > > Oh, so there was someone who don't speak Swedish around. Sorry. Here > comes a translation of what I said to English (I don't speak german). > > Here's the quote from the KDE FAQ again: > > FAQ> Yes, KDE is free software according to the GNU General Public > FAQ> License. All KDE libraries are available under the LGPL making > FAQ> commercial software development for the KDE desktop possible, > FAQ> all KDE applications are licensed under the GPL. > > And your text: > > MC> So KDE applications are under the GPL, not LGPL. And if you take a > MC> GPL'ed application and want to make a KDE version, where KDE requires > MC> a library (qt) that is not compatible with the GPL, you would loose > MC> even if normal KDE applications where LGPLed. > > And what I said: GPL is only "viral" in one way. To use a library to > make a GPL'ed application don't means the library must be (or becomes) > under the GPL. Yes, the library doesn't have to be under the GPL, but unless it is a vital system library (which qt isn't) it must not be under a license where one or more claims are incompatible with the GPL. > Since the libraries (in KDE) uses LGPL rather than GPL it's possible > to write non-GPL applications which fit in the KDE framework [...] Yes, but that is not what I mean. I talked about taking a non-KDE, but GPLed application used together with libraries under GPL-incompatible licenses. If KDE choses to solve the qt problem by releasing no part of KDE under the GPL, but everything under the LGPL (even the applications), that doesn't buy you anything, since you coudlnt' take a non-KDE GPL application and KDE'ize it. In that case, the application's author would be the stupid one for choosing the GPL, not the KDE team... ... but it doesn't change the basic fact: The whole point of the GPL is that you eliminate all otherwise licensed software (execpt those where the license is a pure subset of the GPL). There is no way that you ever can use GPL'ed software and things like qt or mozilla (or parts thereof) together. By choosing the GPL, you choose to ignore all software with incompatible clauses. > MC> It's the whole point of the web page: once you have *one* part under > MC> the GPL, it doesn't matter how many of all the parts are, you loose in > MC> any case that requires a little bit of incompatible licensed software. > > That can be either quite correct or complete rubbish, depending on what > you mean when you say "part". > To use a complete program isn't > infectious. Sure. But for a complete GPL'ed program you can't use incompatibly licensed libraries, which is bad. > Libraries should be (and usually is) LGPL, so they don't > pass on the virus either, as long as you use them as libraries. Sure, but the problem in the KDE case is a library that is not compatible with the GPL and that isn't a vital system library. You cannot legally ship GPL applications with this library built in. > There's way to many people writing loads of text about the GPL > without quite grokking it (and after this, I seem to be one of them) That's true and it makes live for me more difficult as it could be. I have two wider points: 1) The library problem isn't with the LGPL'ed libraries, these are fine. The library problem are the libraries that are incompatible with the GPL, since you have to ignore them if your application is GPL'ed. And your application may be GPL'ed even if you don't want to, but reused just components from a GPL'ed application so that you are infected, which leads to the second point... 2) ... in the modern OpenSource world, an application isn't a "block", it can also be seen as a library, as components you can reuse. It makes more sense to use the LGPL for these applications. > > That said, I still prefer the BSD (or even "Beerware") license, since > it's possible to know how they work without reading entire books (or > massive texts at e.g. http://www.gnu.org/ ) about it. The complexity of the GPL is an entirely different problem. I would happily live with the GPL for all my work if every piece of OpenSource Software would be GPL'ed. But in reality, there is much software with source code where the license has one or more clauses that make it incompatible with the GPL, but where these clauses aren't real problems for me. Qt 2.0, mozilla, many university licenses, the old BSD adversiting clause (which isn't used anymore) are all fine for me, but I couldn't use this software in my own projects if I settled to use the GPL. What makes me angry enough to write a web page about it is that the LGPL is a perfect license for *applications* to solve all these problems, but still ensures that *your* code is reused the way you want. The only difference the GPL has over the LGPL is that you enforce your way of reuse for software you didn't write. I won't even start on "new" library models like Java and distributed objects and what mess the GPL makes out of them (license-wise). Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ Tel.: (private) +4940 5221829 Fax.: (private) +4940 5228536 From kaj@raditex.se Thu Jun 15 18:21:36 2000 Received: from raditex.se (gandalf.raditex.se [192.5.36.18]) by knight.cons.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA22960 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:21:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kaj@localhost) by raditex.se (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA53962; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:21:29 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from kaj@raditex.se) X-Authentication-Warning: frodo.sickla.raditex.se: kaj set sender to kaj@raditex.se using -f Sender: kaj@raditex.se To: Martin Cracauer Cc: Tommy Hallgren , Majid Faraj-Allah , bus@stacken.kth.se Subject: Re: GPL References: <20000508185640.6421.qmail@web111.yahoomail.com> <20000508220539.A8709@cons.org> <20000509192739.A22514@cons.org> <848zxjjy25.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se> <20000510085116.A1854@cons.org> From: Rasmus Kaj Cc: Rasmus Kaj Organization: Raditex AB - http://Raditex.se/ Date: 15 Jun 2000 18:21:28 +0200 In-Reply-To: Martin Cracauer's message of "Wed, 10 May 2000 08:51:17 +0200" Message-ID: <8466ragbjr.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se> User-Agent: Gnus/5.0806 (Gnus v5.8.6) XEmacs/20.4 (Emerald) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Status: RO X-Status: A Content-Length: 3726 Lines: 87 >>>>> "MC" == Martin Cracauer writes, some time >>>>> ago, sorry for my slow response: >> And what I said: GPL is only "viral" in one way. To use a library to >> make a GPL'ed application don't means the library must be (or becomes) >> under the GPL. MC> Yes, the library doesn't have to be under the GPL, but unless it is a MC> vital system library (which qt isn't) it must not be under a license MC> where one or more claims are incompatible with the GPL. Ok, so a GPL'ed application can't use a library that isn't compatible with the GPL (unless they call it vital). That might be a problem for people who insists on writing GPL'ed applications, but it doesn't change the licence of any existing libraries ... >> Since the libraries (in KDE) uses LGPL rather than GPL it's possible >> to write non-GPL applications which fit in the KDE framework [...] MC> Yes, but that is not what I mean. I talked about taking a non-KDE, MC> but GPLed application used together with libraries under MC> GPL-incompatible licenses. Ok. MC> If KDE choses to solve the qt problem by releasing no part of KDE MC> under the GPL, but everything under the LGPL (even the applications), MC> that doesn't buy you anything, since you coudlnt' take a non-KDE GPL MC> application and KDE'ize it. In that case, the application's author MC> would be the stupid one for choosing the GPL, not the KDE team... Ah, I see your point. This is not about the "viral" nature of GPL, but rather the "shodstopping" side of it ... MC> ... but it doesn't change the basic fact: The whole point of the GPL MC> is that you eliminate all otherwise licensed software (execpt those MC> where the license is a pure subset of the GPL). MC> There is no way that you ever can use GPL'ed software and things like MC> qt or mozilla (or parts thereof) together. By choosing the GPL, you MC> choose to ignore all software with incompatible clauses. Yes, I agree. MC> It's the whole point of the web page: once you have *one* part under MC> the GPL, it doesn't matter how many of all the parts are, you loose in MC> any case that requires a little bit of incompatible licensed software. >> That can be either quite correct or complete rubbish, depending on what >> you mean when you say "part". >> To use a complete program isn't >> infectious. MC> Sure. But for a complete GPL'ed program you can't use incompatibly MC> licensed libraries, which is bad. Yes, that's bad. And RMS has worked his best to make sure it can't be fixed, by saying in the GPL that an application once touched by GPL is GPL forever ... MC> I have two wider points: MC> 1) The library problem isn't with the LGPL'ed libraries, these are MC> fine. The library problem are the libraries that are incompatible MC> with the GPL, since you have to ignore them if your application is MC> GPL'ed. And your application may be GPL'ed even if you don't want MC> to, but reused just components from a GPL'ed application so that MC> you are infected, which leads to the second point... Yes, but I'd rather say the problem is the GPL'ed apps than the libs ... MC> 2) ... in the modern OpenSource world, an application isn't a "block", MC> it can also be seen as a library, as components you can reuse. It MC> makes more sense to use the LGPL for these applications. Agreed. In fact, it seems I agree with you on most parts, now that I see what you're actually talking about. :-) -- Rasmus Kaj -------------------- rasmus@kaj.se - http://Raditex.se/~kaj/ \ What we see depends on mainly what we look for \------------------------------------------------- http://Raditex.se/ From cracauer Thu Jun 15 19:19:53 2000 Received: (from cracauer@localhost) by knight.cons.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA23712; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:19:45 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:19:45 +0200 From: Martin Cracauer To: Rasmus Kaj Cc: Martin Cracauer , Tommy Hallgren , Majid Faraj-Allah , bus@stacken.kth.se Subject: Re: GPL Message-ID: <20000615191945.B23647@cons.org> References: <20000508185640.6421.qmail@web111.yahoomail.com> <20000508220539.A8709@cons.org> <20000509192739.A22514@cons.org> <848zxjjy25.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se> <20000510085116.A1854@cons.org> <8466ragbjr.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <8466ragbjr.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se>; from kaj@raditex.se on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 06:21:28PM +0200 Status: RO Content-Length: 2085 Lines: 45 In <8466ragbjr.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se>, Rasmus Kaj wrote: > MC> If KDE choses to solve the qt problem by releasing no part of KDE > MC> under the GPL, but everything under the LGPL (even the applications), > MC> that doesn't buy you anything, since you coudlnt' take a non-KDE GPL > MC> application and KDE'ize it. In that case, the application's author > MC> would be the stupid one for choosing the GPL, not the KDE team... > > Ah, I see your point. This is not about the "viral" nature of GPL, but > rather the "shodstopping" side of it ... What is "shodstopping"? [...] > MC> Sure. But for a complete GPL'ed program you can't use incompatibly > MC> licensed libraries, which is bad. > > Yes, that's bad. And RMS has worked his best to make sure it can't be > fixed, by saying in the GPL that an application once touched by GPL is > GPL forever ... That's not the case. The copyright holder may change the license at any time for everything he gives out from that moment. > MC> I have two wider points: > > MC> 1) The library problem isn't with the LGPL'ed libraries, these are > MC> fine. The library problem are the libraries that are incompatible > MC> with the GPL, since you have to ignore them if your application is > MC> GPL'ed. And your application may be GPL'ed even if you don't want > MC> to, but reused just components from a GPL'ed application so that > MC> you are infected, which leads to the second point... > > Yes, but I'd rather say the problem is the GPL'ed apps than the libs ... The GPL is the problem. It works only in a world where you do not use any software incompatible with the GPL. However, there is much software where the license is free enough for me (mozilla, the new qt license, BSD advertising clause, university license) and I don't want to kill this software, I'd rather dismiss the GPL. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ BSD User Group Hamburg, Germany http://www.bsdhh.org/ From cracauer Tue Jun 20 08:35:26 2000 Received: (from cracauer@localhost) by knight.cons.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA18024; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:35:21 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:35:19 +0200 From: Martin Cracauer To: Rasmus Kaj Cc: Martin Cracauer , Tommy Hallgren , Majid Faraj-Allah , bus@stacken.kth.se Subject: Re: GPL Message-ID: <20000620083518.B17817@cons.org> References: <20000508185640.6421.qmail@web111.yahoomail.com> <20000508220539.A8709@cons.org> <20000509192739.A22514@cons.org> <848zxjjy25.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se> <20000510085116.A1854@cons.org> <8466ragbjr.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <8466ragbjr.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se>; from kaj@raditex.se on Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 06:21:28PM +0200 Status: RO Content-Length: 702 Lines: 20 Folks, I'd like to thank you for the constructive debate, I think is was very useful to all of us. I'd like to put an archive of this discussion thread on my web page about the GPL, in case other people find the same things unclear as you did. Is anybody against this, either in general or wants his own wordings removed? I case you didn't see it, the website is a private noncommercial collection mostly of OpenSource stuff and you may retract your postings at any time by emailing me. Thanks Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ BSD User Group Hamburg, Germany http://www.bsdhh.org/ From cracauer Wed May 10 09:14:10 2000 Received: (from cracauer@localhost) by knight.cons.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA02433; Wed, 10 May 2000 09:14:08 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 09:14:08 +0200 From: Martin Cracauer To: Rasmus Kaj Cc: Martin Cracauer , Tommy Hallgren , Majid Faraj-Allah , bus@stacken.kth.se Subject: Re: GPL Message-ID: <20000510091407.A2320@cons.org> References: <20000508185640.6421.qmail@web111.yahoomail.com> <20000508220539.A8709@cons.org> <20000509192739.A22514@cons.org> <848zxjjy25.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <848zxjjy25.fsf@frodo.sickla.raditex.se>; from kaj@raditex.se on Tue, May 09, 2000 at 09:58:10PM +0200 Status: RO Content-Length: 2528 Lines: 57 Sorry for the second reply, but I think there is a deeper communication problem here: What you talk about (IMHO): "Martin, you don't have to fear that your code is infected by the GPL when you write for KDE. Because you use the LGPL'ed libraries and not the GPL'ed applications." That right, I don't question that. But what I'm talking about: I don't care for the software I personally write and I don't write GUI applications and I tend not to use libraries. What I care about is "the world" (my computers) as a whole: How can we ensure that OpenSource software grows as fast a possible, how can we ensure that the tools we need for our work become free (i.e. all the OpenSOurce advantages) as fast as possible? We cannot reach this goal by choosing the GPL, since it enforces us not to use major reuseable software parts that are licensed so that they are incompatible with the GPL, but still perfectly acceptable for me (qt-2.0, mozilla, university licenses, old BSD advertising clause). I want people who want their software reused only in OpenSource projects to use the LGPL, not the GPL, since it solves all the software and protects what you wrote yourself, not enforcing anything on other people's source. At the same time, we can build applications from these parts and those that are under different but acceptable licenses. For me, this way will free our toolchain much faster that using the GPL virus effect to kill all other software. I don't doubt that some pieces of free code wouldn't be free if they weren't infected by the GPL, but the amount of such code is neglectable when compared to the "different but acceptable" stack of code. Look at your computer, what are the things you use still struggle with? Assuming it is any similar to mine: - Web browser (mozilla not ready, netscape 4.x crashes and no source, 3.x too old and no source). - vmware. - Applixware. Ask yourself: What is the faster way to get software like this in OpenSource and maintainable form: ignoring everything GPL-incompatible and hope that the virus will reach it "somehow". Or should we widen the range of software we can reuse as much as possible? Mozilla is the primany example: Free enough but not GPL-compatible. We could build on it to make something fine, but not in GPL-infected environments like KDE. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ Tel.: (private) +4940 5221829 Fax.: (private) +4940 5228536