Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?



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



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