Re: [rms@gnu.org: Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library]

[sungod <sungod atdot org>]

Miguel de Icaza wrote:

>    Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library
>                            -- Richard Stallman

i read this on slashdot, and although i'm a stallman fan and in general
a gpl purist, i would like to take a minute away from the normal bustle
of debugging to mention that maybe this essay, while generally full of
good ideas, may not be applicable to the gnome project.

my personal opinion is that all libraries in gnome should be lgpl'ed and
all end-user apps should be gpl'ed. the reason why i support the lgpl in
this case is because it is, for now, quite desirable to have commercial,
proprietary applications that use gnome libraries. my example is
mozilla: would mozilla have considered using gtk+ if the use had
required it to be released under the gpl? i don't think so, and while
that may be a good thing in rms's eyes (and indeed probably would be in
the long run anyway), having mozilla for linux use the gtk+ widget set
is an important step forward for gtk+ and gnome development, and a boost
in popularity and recognition for us as well.

now mozilla has opened the door for motif -> gtk+ migration. who's next?
corel, with wp9 using gtk+, and advertising the themability and gnome
integration right on the packaging? while, again, rms may not think this
is a good idea, i again think this would be another big step forward for
gnome and gtk+ support within the linux/unix community. during these
rocky development stages, it might behoove us to keep the proprietary
guys on our side for a while. who knows; maybe a mozilla developer or
corel developer will find an itch unscratched within gtk+ and contribute
back to the project?

just a few thoughts. perhaps in the long run shutting out proprietary
software may positively influence the free software community, but i
don't think it's that time yet. we're still too young, have some
maturing to do, and have a monopoly of our own to overcome.

i do, of course, agree that it's better to monopolize on the side of
freedom through using exclusive licenses than it is to monopolize on the
side of the proprietary through use of "embrace-and-extend" (like
there's anything they've innovated that we can't follow or improve upon)
but i don't think we have the market share for that just yet.

>/dev/null
-- 

"Only one who has mastered a tradition has a right to attempt to add to
it or to rebel against it." -Chaim Potok, _My Name Is Asher Lev_