Re: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> On sam, 2008-03-22 at 22:33 +0100, Giancarlo Niccolai wrote:
>>> Have you considered the GNU LGPL (v2.1)?
>>>
>> Yes, but I encountered strong resistance from FSF when proposing
>> a "lighter" (with exceptions) LGPL version.
>
> This is, again, because you are not proposing additional
> permissions (for which the LGPL with extra additional permissions
> would be fine) but additional *restrictions*.
>
Well, yes, and no. Part of the things that would be covered by LGPL in
full (requiring re-application of LGPL and openness) are just required
to place a notice somewhere by FPLL, while the things that LGPL would
just forget about (totally free) will still require to place the same
notice by FPLL. Some of the applications, the most relevant one for
our community (in my aims), would be more, not less, free with FPLL.
However, you can't burn a theatre with all people even if you'd like
the show because there are *restriction* to certain actions. I
Understand that the term *restriction* may have a bad ring among
coders, but GPL is all about *restricting* people from *harming* other
people's freedom.
In this sense, FSF was a bit "reluctant"; not in demanding a bit more
of humanity on closed source software, but in removing some of those
*restrictions* from that software that would have been more, not less,
free with FPLL.
In example, a fully scripted application that uses Falcon to run is
not "linking" it; it's damedly using it head over heels and up to the
throat, and if Falcon was LGPL without exceptions, the script-based
apps would have to be distributed open source and under LGPL or more
restrictive terms. Under FPLL, they can be distributed with any term;
they can pick any open source license or distribute the code
closed-source, in which case they are required to place a notice.
The term "script" may have given room to the doubt that FPLL should
have been applied also to Falcon scripts run by non FPLL software
(i.e. run with a separately written VM or interpreter); I'll remove
this term to avoid this confusion.
Bests,
Giancarlo Niccolai.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFH7FnO5nwsoBIDC4YRAgVbAJ4rr09BWup+H6qspNWVULpvJW43ZgCfYLeB
Jf6aL4pjtXsm9OKDw2XmFBg=
=Ik4a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: