Re: Using GPL for LibGTop with an exception for the GNOME Project

[Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org>]

Michael Fulbright <msf@redhat.com> writes:

> Why do you want to change the license? All of gtk+/glib/gnome is LGPL. 
> What makes libgtop different so it requires a different license?

It does not "require" a new license. But there is a main difference
between libgtop and gtk+/glib/gnome and this is that there is a benefit
of having for instance gtk+ under the LGPL: even if you write a
commercial application using the gtk+ and gnome-libs libraries this
app will perfectly integrate in the GNOME Desktop Environment; users
won't see any difference between this commercial app and the rest of
Gnome. This is a real benefit for the (unexperienced) user: the user
only needs to learn how to use "his" desktop environment called Gnome,
for him this is better than being confronted with a totally different
looking and behaving app.

glib is a requirement for gtk+ and gnome, gtk+ can't go without glib
and so glib must be LGPL if gtk+ is LGPL.

Same for things like ORBit or imlib: they are required by Gnome, it
can't go without them.

But this is totally different for LibGTop: the casual user will not
even be aware of the fact that some app is using libgtop to get its
data, this is only visible to the programmer.

So there is a difference: if the casual user doesn't mind whether an
app is using libgtop or some other means to get its data, it is
perfectly fine for commercial programmers to write their own library
instead of using libgtop. This is not true for gtk+ or gnome, using
another library there would be against the users wishes.

I do not want to "discriminate" every one, it was always my primary aim
to make libgtop the best use for the free software community - and since
there isdn't any non-GNU ananlogon for it at the moment, releasing it
under the GPL will give the free software community a real advantage
over commercial programmers.
 
> We at Red Hat at least have tried to avoid shipping GPL libraries if
> at all possible, because we do not like to discriminat against users
> of any kind. The GPL discriminates against a certain class of users,
> which is why we use the LGPL.

I really have no problems with RedHat, no problems with SuSE and no
problems with other Linux distributions: especially RedHat has done
very much for the free software community like paying programmers or
giving us machines for the Gnome Project so I really do not have any
objections against allowing RedHat to use libgtop in any commercial
app they want. 

But his is not the same for all commercial companies, there might be
some commercial programmers wanting to use it in a commercial app that
has nothing to do with Gnome at all and this company may even decide
to piss on free software and just use it because its "week" licenses
permits it. In opposite to gtk+/gnome users of this app won't have
any benefit from libgtop, so using the GPL would give me any all other
people that contribute to it, write ports to different systems, ... the
possiblity to defend our good work from this abuse and to "keep
free software free".

This especially becomes an issue as LibGTop will reach 1.0 this week and
we may get more ports to commercial Unixes as it becomes more popular.

LibGTop should always be to the greatest use for Free Software, not for
commercial one; commercial writers have the money to pay programmers
to write a replacement for it that free software writers do not have
and due to this I think it is too valuable to "give it away" to the
commercial world for nothing.

Citing my own posting ...

% However, after reading through the Gnome Mailing List Archive especially
% the "why it's wrong to use the LGPL" thread I wanted to ask you what you
% think about changing LibGTop's license to the GPL with a special (LGPL)
% exception for the GNOME project.

I should explain this a little bit:

As I started with LibGTop in early April 1998 I choosed the LGPL for it
"since it was a library" - I did not know anything about
"why it's wrong to use the LGPL" and I thought that libraries should
always use the LGPL and never the GPL.

So I did not change my mind about its license yesterday, I just started
to make up my mind what would be the best license for it before I make
the 1.0 release. Of cause I can't change any existing versions so
commercial writers can always use the 0.99.9 tarball that has the LGPL
in it, but they should be aware that they won't be permitted to use
any further versions, any bug fixes or any port to a new system that
were made after the time I made the 0.99.9 tarball. So they always have
a beta version that calls itself 0.99.9 and not 1.x.x.

To this "exception for GNOME" thing:

Since gnome-core, gtop and gnome-utils are all GPL, it really isn't
required to have it under LGPL for GNOME thanks to all people pointing
this out. After thinking more closely about this, having an exception
to the GPL really isn't a good idea - especially since the FSF has done
a good job in writing the GPL as it is without any (known) loophole in
it, so it isn't very wise to make modifications in it.

So I will use either plain LGPL or plain GPL, but more likely plain GPL
than plain LGPL.

My idea with the exception also was to allow commercial GNOME programs
to use libgtop - but since libgtop is no required part of Gnome it is
probably really better to have it under GPL and thus giving free GNOME
apps a real advantage over commercial ones.

-- 
Martin Baulig - martin@home-of-linux.org - http://www.home-of-linux.org