Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?

["Gregory Leblanc" <headmaster albus dumbledore gmail com>]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:30 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.
>
[snip]
>    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?
>
> As free software developers we naturally feel good to see our own
> programs in wider use.  But what is really important is for free
> software to replace proprietary software.  We can achieve more for
> freedom if we focus on the deeper and more important long-term goal.

I'm afraid that I cannot agree with your conclusions here.  This
theory works well when we have created some new and innovative feature
such as, to use one of the examples from fsf.org, readline.  However,
there are a great many IDEs on the market.  From what I have seen, the
free software "competitors" to these are completely and totally unable
to compete on any basis. Licensing Glade under the LGPL means that we
might, at some point down the road, have an IDE that doesn't suck,
which we can use for hacking Gnome.  While I'm sure you don't agree, I
would rather have some IDE, regardless of license, than to have no
IDE, under a Free Software license.
     Greg

P.S. Please don't reply to me directly, I can read the list just fine.