Re: Framebuffer port of GTK/GDK !!

[dg50 daimlerchrysler com]

> If applications must be GPL, then the platform is locking out a good
> portion of not only proprietary licensed applications, but also free
> software under a non-GPL license.  That just doesn't make sense.

I don't mean to start a flamewar here, so I'd just like to register an
opinion. Y'all don't have to agree with me, and if you do disagree with my
opinion, well, my mind is made up on this issue - but I also don't intend
to try and "convert" anybody either. I just want to register my opinion,
and slink off quietly. ;)

In My Opinion, propegation of the GPL is a Very Good Thing indeed, and it
should be done at nearly every opportunity. In fact, it should take an
_exceptional_ argument to have something released as Open Source under any
other licence.

I just spent a good portion of the day meeting with people from Computer
Associates who are trying to sell us one of their two LDAP server products
- one which runs on OS/390 mainframes (and talks to the underlying security
stuff) and one which is for Very High Perfomance UNIX servers. Both
products are based on the OpenLDAP server code, and both products plan to
continually roll changes from the OpenLDAP codebase into their products. In
theory, were I to have OpenLDAP CVS commit rights, my work would show up in
their products.

However, as the OpenLDAP Public Licence is BSD-like, CA is not obliged to
provide source for their changes/improvements. This sucks, as it means any
bugs I fix or (needed) features I add in the OpenLDAP base code won't show
up in the CA product (that I am supposedly running in production) for
months. Feh. If OpenLDAP was GPLed, then I could get CA's source, and this
problem wouldn't occur. Fix the bug, add the feature, compile, test,
install. Done. That's why the GPL exists in the first place.

The message is clear to me. If you don't GPL it, someone else will close it
for you.

I can understand - not necessarily agree with - but can understand why GTK
is LGPLed. If it were up to me, I'd require that anything built with GTK be
GPLed. Period. But I can see how such a decision might slow down the rate
of adoption of GTK as the standard widget toolset, and I can agree
(grudgingly) that wide acceptance of GTK as a standard widget set has a not
insubstancial benefit. Fine. OK.

But I'd rather see something like Framebuffer GDK (which is more like a
device driver than a library, really) GPLed up front.

Besides, an embedded system product is more likely than not to be running
on proprietary, non-commodity hardware (which is where the real money is)
so the GPL's "infectious" nature is less likely to be an issue with the
target audience

Thanks for the soapbox. I'll slink off quietly now.



DG