Hi Tristan! Just a sidenote (I am not joing the free software discussion): I think you will get some difficulties relicensing when not all authors agree and as far as I have understood Naba, he doesn't. I have not constributed too much to glade and you could probably replace my code but I don't agree either. So, isn't this a phantom discussion, anyway? Regards. Johannnes Am Montag, den 03.11.2008, 17:02 -0500 schrieb Tristan Van Berkom: > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Dave Neary <dneary gnome org> wrote: > > Linus decided that Bitkeeper was fine for his needs, and started using > > it and publishing his repository in a public Bitkeeper repository. > > Bitkeeper guy (Larry McVoy) gave free copies of the client to free > > software developers. > [...] > > Thankyou Dave that was a very insightful read for me, as far as I can > see the risks at hand involve a hypothetical situation where the community > gets addicted to a non-free extension of Glade, my relicensing of Glade > does not go beyond LGPL, and to keep us in check, I definatly invite > more freedom lovers to contribute and spread the ownership of authorial > copyright thinner ;-) > > I was at first ambivalent about the licensing of the plugins for libgladeui > use as a Gtk+ interface designer (soon libgladeui will not have a runtime > dependency on gtk+ at all), after discussing it further with my main > Glade colleague Juan; I am confidant that we also want them LGPL. > > Making non-free extensions of Glade possible does not mean that free > Glade will not exist. I welcome the competition firstly, and Juan > and I still strongly agree that allowing non-free extensions of Glade > will help to attract a larger user base to Gtk+, which consists of > free and proprietary softwares alike. > > I am not here to deny anyone free use of Glade, that would include > any company who might need to write a proper sdk for their GNU/Linux > based embedded/handheld/realtime/insert-flavour-here platform. > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Richard M. Stallman <rms gnu org> wrote: > > Not to metion the fact that merely using the non-free program > > sends the message that non-free software is ok. > [...] > > Commercial software endevours as it stands are already high-risk affairs, > we need people to build cathedrals out of our bazaar, these are > valuable endevours that help alot with innovation and computing on > a whole, cathedrals that dont have a proper bazaar as their foundation > will come crashing down with security holes, careless mistakes and > downright lack of public scrutiny (we've all seen it before). > > This is a lesson that commercial vendors will have to learn the > hard way, and if free software is anywhere near as superiour as > I believe it to be, commercial vendor's success will inevitably > be measured by their willingness to cooperate (give and take) with > the bazaar that is free software. When such an endevour is > actually successful, realistically they only have a year or two > until someone has come up with a free solution for their project, > which is a fair lapse of time if you ask me, not more, not less. > So I would have to thank them for coming up with something that > we havent already thought of ourselves, and even prototyping it > for us in a product. > > If you really think that selling any software is not OK, > to the point of which using any proprietary software sends > a bad message, I can only say dont use proprietary software > at all, I wont stand in the way of your freedom in a consumers > market to use a free or proprietary tool for your own purposes. > > Regards, > -Tristan > _______________________________________________ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list gnome org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil