Re: Proposed license policy

[Ian Peters <itp helixcode com>]

On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 05:09:34PM -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Ian Peters <itp helixcode com> writes:
> > 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.
> 
> We currently have companies that want to deliver applications on the
> GNOME platform, ones where there is not even the beginning of a free
> equivalent. I don't think it is viable, as of today, to expect the
> companies that develop these programs to change to a free license
> right away. I prefer use of the carrot to use of the stick.

Right, we agree about that.  So let's make sure that everything
required to build a fully functional GNOME application remains LGPL or
equivalent.

> > 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.
> 
> The GNOME project has historically placed somewhat more weight on
> viability as a development platform for proprietary applications,
> whereas the GNU project leadership often sees this goal as peripheral,
> if not outright undesirable. 
> 
> Maybe we should have a discussion about how we feel on this. I am a
> die-hard free software fanatic and want to see free applications for
> every purpose under the sun, but I don't want us to drive off
> proprietary developers either. I would appreciate other opinions on
> this.

I think it's a great idea to have a dialog about this.  I think we'd
all like to see GNOME as the development platform of choice for all
software, free and non-free.  I don't know whether that means we
should aim for parity, though.

> > 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.
> 
> I guess we could have, as Havoc suggested, a GPL devel platform for
> clearly nonessential stuff that we nontheless want to make stability
> promises for or whatever. GAL definitely couldn't be part of even a
> GPL devel platform right now though, since it explicitly disclaims all
> promises of API/ABI stability.

Hopefully GAL can move towards more stability as things calm down and
portions of it migrate elsewhere.  Until then, I agree.

> Do you think we need to define the parameters for a "GPL devel
> platform" right now, or can we wait until we have libraries that are
> candidates for inclusion in a GPL devel platform (GPL'd, part of
> GNOME, not for internal use only, and willing to guarantee API/ABI
> stability)?

I think it wouldn't hurt to think about this kind of thing in advance,
as that may help sway some developers as to where they want to put
their efforts.  We've got the time now, so we might as well think
things through, like we're doing now.

-- 
Ian Peters
itp helixcode com

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