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

Re: Recently released QPL

On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 01:44:42PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > That is your opinion (and the opinion of most of us) but it's still not the
> > "fact" you make it out to be.  GPL *does* restrict your rights.  If you
> > found a kewl foobar program but wanted to put the xforms front end to it,
> > you can't.  Well, you can, but then you can't distribute it to anyone,
> This is the fault of the xforms people for not making it truly Free;
> don't try to pin that on the GPL.


The GPL is not the only free license there is.  If you have a problem
with that, you have a problem with the DFSG.  There are pieces of
software the GPL is not compatible with SITTING IN MAIN.  Yes, TRULY FREE
SOFTWARE if you take the DFSG as any measure of definition is
incompatible with the GPL.

Don't even try to say that one bad example invalidates the argument.  The
BSD license on ash is incompatible with libreadline's GPL---is ash
non-free?  Not according to the DFSG.  And yes, I do directly blame the
GPL for this.

> > of the mess with KDE.  Many people objected to KDE because the chose a
> > non-free library to work with but what got it pulled was the linking of
> > those GPL'd programs to this non-free library even though THEIR source was
> > or would have been free.
> This is Qt's fault for not making a free library.  Surely we should
> not blame GPL for somebody else's licensing mistakes?

Qt 2.0 will also be good for the DSFG---but not for the GPL.

> > Sure, the GPL restricts somebody's freedom to use any part of that code in
> > their proprietary software and that's what you want... And you accept the
> This is not a restriction, it's a benefit.  You are forgetting that
> proprietary software robs us of freedom.  The GPL is ensuring that the 
> greedy people out there can't rob us of our freedoms.

By letting the self-righteous decide what software is good and what
software is bad.  And anything not GPL---whether it is DFSG-free or
not--is bad, right?

> > X's license is more free but has the undesirable affect of allowing it to 
> > let people use Free code, improve free code and not be forced to return it
> > to the community...
> Which means that in the end, it's a lot less free, doesn't it.

Only if you think it matters that much that everything people do is
returned to the community.  If you don't care or worse want people to be
able to do what they will with your code, the GPL would get in your way. 

How does letting me link ash with libreadline interfere with the freeness
of libreadline?  Even ash is Free Software, so where's the problem.

I said a license that is essentially a derivative of the LGPL which is
more restrictive in that software linked must be Free Software (using the
DFSG as a guide) is IMO essential and you started in on me saying I had
problems with what Debian stands for??  Well excuse me, but I just
proposed a DFSG-free license that I would actually be willing to use on
my software, and you're the one who has a problem with it---because it
isn't the GPL.  Who has the problem with what Debian stands for now?

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>            Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE            The Source Comes First!
<Chalky> gcc is the best compressor ever ported to linux. it can turn
         12MB of kernel source (and that's .debbed) into a 500k kernel

Attachment: pgpQBeP50SPbi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: