Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?

["Naba Kumar" <naba kumar gmail com>]

HI,

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Richard M. Stallman <rms gnu org> wrote:
>       Basically, the glade core is intended to serve as a library to
>    edit glade files, making the glade core available under LGPL
>    in my understanding will allow people to use that library in a
>    commercial IDE,
>
> It would do that, and that seems like a good reason not to change the
> license.  Currently Glade gives an advantage to free IDEs: only they
> can use it.  We want free IDEs to replace proprietary IDEs, and Glade will
> make this easier.
>
> Would it really benefit our community to negate that advantage?  I
> don't think so.
>
I am fully with Richard here. LGPLing libgladeui is essentially
LGPLing 'the glade application'. Being a library doesn't change that
fact, because it's mostly a means for free IDEs to integrate glade
application, like Anjuta does.

I am against going anything less than GPL for free software
'application'. My reasons being exactly what Richard pointed out -- it
allows extending your applications with proprietory solutions (with
plugins for example) making the application 'as a whole' not free
software anymore. This has complicated results later. You won't be
able to influence/see/change the non-free portions of your application
and could mean significant resistance in controlling the direction of
your application. Your 'free software' could merely become an
instrument to replace itself with proprietory solution.

This isn't the case if your library was a 'library' in true sense,
which provides smaller/lower building blocks to higher level
applications (e.g. widgets). In that case, I tend to agree LGPL
couldn't harm since your definition of 'the whole project' still stays
within the scope of your library. But libgladeui is not this case.

>
>    I love seeing it in Anjuta, I would love to see it all over the place :)
>
> Wouldn't it be even better for free IDEs with Glade to replace the
> proprietary IDEs?
>
Again I can't agree more. As Anjuta developer, I might feel
biased/selfish here, but I think it's far more important to have it
working well with free IDEs than it promoting proprietory IDEs. Right
now glade+Anjuta integration isn't anywhere close to what I want. This
stance will get worse if suddenly all the glade integration attention
goes away to a proprietory IDE (if it was another free IDE, then
nobody loses). You need to think of general 'eco system' as well, not
just glade.

That said, as the person who initiated glade/libgladeui separating for
use in Anjuta, I would be disappointed if it goes LGPL. Tristan, I
hope you think of use as well :)

Thanks.

Regards,
-Naba