Subject: Re: ability to not to use gnome print under gnome build
From: Vlad Harchev (hvv@hippo.ru)
Date: Thu Nov 30 2000 - 08:29:00 CST
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Sam TH wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 02:32:55PM +0400, Vlad Harchev wrote:
>
> > > 1) gnome-print doesn't require copyright assignment, so if you
> > > contributed to it, no one could license it under any other license
> > > without your approval. So you don't have to worry.
> >
> > That's very nice. The problem is - if I just fix a pile of bugs, I can't hold
> > copyright for bugfixes/fixed code. I have to write any module myself to claim
> > copyright on it. That's a bad thing about bugfixing.
>
> Well, the FSF standard is that copyright assignment is required for
> more than about 10 lines of code. Beyond that, you have copyright to
> the code you contribute, and people attempting to use it under a
> different license would have to get you permission.
That sounds sweet..
> >
> > > 2) There is ZERO possibility of GNOME doing anything like this. The
> > > GNOME libraries that are GPL are that way so that proprietary code
> > > can't use them, not to make money. If someone tried this, all of
> > > GNOME would revolt.
> >
> > First, all members of gnome foundation can link to GPLed gnome libraries. The
> > membership costs $10K/year currently. Granted, it's rather cheap currently..
>
> First, this is untrue. If it were true, I would resign from the
Hmm, just checked - that's really untrue (I assumed slashdotters know what
they say, so believed them without checking). I'm sorry for confusion again.
> foundation, and I suspect Dom and Martin and Joaquin would also, as
> would important people like Havoc. Your ten grand buys you some
> influence with the Foundation board. (And not too much, at that.) It
> does not buy you any code.
>
> > Second, one rather crucial gnome library is GPLed only in order to raise
> > money. The library's author told me that privately. That's very disappointing,
> > so I'm very careful about improving GPLed libraries now.
> >
>
> I'm sad if this is true, however I find it unlikely. Almost everyone
> in the project is committed to free software.
Yes, such library/author really exist. Some company pays him a salary, and
plans to make money from licensing his work.
> For a better perspective on making libraries GPL, see the essay at
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
It's their philosophy/POV. There is no proof that it's correct. Nobody
is forced to accept it to be able to write software. And user suffers first
from absense of smart software (that could be made much more smart by using
some libraries if they were LGPLed that are currently GPLed). A good example
- various shells and interactive utilities that can't use GNU readline since
it's GPLed.
This thread begins to be offtopic..
Best regards,
-Vlad
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 08:53:25 CST