Re: Proposed license policy

[Ian Peters <itp helixcode com>]

On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 03:07:11PM -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Ian Peters <itp helixcode com> writes:
> > GPL libraries can surely be used by other free software projects, and
> > that doesn't always mean internal.
> > 
> 
> They could be if those projects want to live on the edge and use
> internal use libraries and which are not part of the GNOME platform
> (which means we don't guarantee API/ABI stability for instance).

I guess if these libraries aren't to be dubbed "official" by the GNOME
project, the authors of those libraries could make their own promises
of stability...

> I wouldn't like to see anyone encouraging outside projects to use
> non-platform libraries, but we certainly shouldn't attempt to stop
> people from doing so.
> 
> Basically we don't want to declare the GNOME platform off-limits to
> proprietary software, or even in some sense to make proprietary
> software a second-class citizen, because the strategic cost of driving
> away developers would be greater than the benefit of giving free apps
> an advantage. Or at least I though this was what the GNOME community
> had agreed to.

Hmm, I guess there is a bit of disagreement here.  I don't see GPL'd
libraries as off-limits the same way you do.  To be sure, to use them
developers would have to make licensing or design changes to their
applications, but I'm not sure this is reason enough to not embrace
them under the GNOME mantle.

The GNU project has a long standing tradition of choosing the GPL
vs. LGPL based on whether a proprietary alternative already exists,
and we might do well to examine that policy when making our own
decisions, as we are part of the GNU project.

Perhaps we could have some metric of essential vs. non-essential
libraries?  As an example, GAL, which is primarily at this time a
widget repository, certainly isn't required for GNOME development.  I
definitely don't want to see core technology, on the
bonobo/oaf/gnome-libs plane, licensed exclusively for free software
use.

> BTW, I hope people don't see this as an anti-GAL plot or anything (I
> detect a hint of that in some messages). I think GAL is a great idea,
> especially with the assignment policy removed, and it's wonderful to
> have a mechanism for GNOME apps to share code without having to put it
> in gnome-libs. I've suggested that we at Eazel put some of the code
> we've developed for Nautilus that is generally useful in GAL (though
> I can't say if that will actually happen).

Not at all.  I think we'd all do well to ignore any hints of
conspiracy/accusations/etc in messages; that way, only those who
persist in making veiled insults end up looking like fools.

I'd love to see Eazel contribute to GAL to avoid duplication of
effort.  There's a lot of useful code in Nautilus that I'm sure other
developers would benefit from easy access to.

-- 
Ian Peters
itp helixcode com

_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers