A slight correction, before certain pedants swing in to "correct" me. GNUstep uses LGPL2.1+ for the libraries and GPLv3+ for the applications.
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Gregory Casamento <greg.casame...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maxthon, > > Please see my answers below. It should be noted that I don't > necessarily agree with all of the FSF's policies, but I am simply > trying to get you to understand the argument from the a Free Software > perspective. > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Maxthon Chan <xcvi...@me.com> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 13, 2015, at 10:57, Gregory Casamento <greg.casame...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Maxthon, >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Maxthon Chan <xcvi...@me.com> wrote: >>> < snipped for brevity... > >>>> >>>> They exposed **every single** site functionality through the API (in fact, >>>> the Web interface itself uses the API to do its business, so it is safe to >>>> say that https://github.com/ is no more than one of the several available >>>> front-ends for https://api.github.com/) so https://api.github.com/ is >>>> satisfying this criteria. >>>> >>> >>> I believe you are egregiously and entirely missing the point regarding >>> what Richard is saying. Whether or not GitHub exposes the >>> functionality of the site via the API is COPLETELY immaterial to the >>> argument regarding whether or not it should be used according to the >>> FSF's rules. >>> >>> GitHub as a whole does not satisfy their criteria and that is what the >>> argument is about. >>> >>> The unfortunate part of this is that GitHub has been successful at >>> achieving a great deal of notoriety and going anywhere else would be >>> considered "obscure.” >> >> My point is that the website you see at https://github.com URL is not the >> actual component of Github that handles the business. It is >> https://api.github.com/ that does all the heavylifting. > > Most people use the API through the web interface which is Non-free. > That's the point here. To do so they will need to run obfuscated JS > in their browser. This causes GitHub to fail even the C0 rating of > the repo criteria. Which is terribly unfortunate. I suspect that > changing it so that it would at least come in at C0 would be > relatively easy, but then again... I'm not working for GitHub, so I > have no clue. > > You could actually argue that we don't have to use github at all and > could simply use git from the command line. The worry here is that > putting GNUstep on GitHub will encourage the use of the offending > front end by people who do not know how to use the API and thus it > could be seen by the public at large as an endorsement by the FSF of > GitHub's practices. > > I hope this makes it clear, because I am finding it difficult to be > more explicit than this in my explanation. > >>>> Their website and API are license-blind. Github have a “choose a >>>> license” website that put GPL at the same level of recommendation as >>>> Apache 2.0 and MIT/X11 license. Due to **practical reasons** people >>>> are **avoiding** GPLv3 (you may need to check the reason why folks >>>> are doing this, or GPLv3 will soon become the license of past,) so their >>>> recommendation is GPLv2+ for GPL. >>> >>> I'm wondering where you get this impression. GPLv3 is not being >>> avoided by any means: >>> >>> http://techrights.org/2007/10/27/gplv3-growth-palamida/ >>> http://www.cnet.com/news/gplv3-hits-50-percent-adoption/ >> >> You may want to check more recent data. World economy, and hence people’s >> pay checks and donations, changed a lot from pre-crisis 2007 to in-crisis >> 2015. > > Ahem.... you were, uh... saying? > > https://www.blackducksoftware.com/news/releases/2009-06-30 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPLv3#Version_3 > > GPLv2.x has a larger degree of adoption than v3, mainly because it has > been around longer. Additionally much software is licensed as > GPLv2.1+ (or later). So, I'm not entirely sure where you're coming > from. > > I find the whole debate about licenses to be unnecessary in this > context in the first place. It seems an argumentative tactic to > distract from the actual issue. > >>> A person is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. >>> The fact of the matter is, GPLv3 is extremely relevant when it comes >>> to fighting patents as well as many other things. While I, >>> personally, am no fan of it's incompatibility with GPLv2 (as it >>> adversely impacts some GNUstep apps due to those authors being >>> unwilling to re-license or even add a "or later") I do understand what >>> it's purpose is and why it's important. So, please, don't lie to >>> yourself or spread misinformation about it being a "thing of the past" >>> as it certainly isn’t. >> >> The Linux kernel, probably the single biggest GPL-licensed codebase, is >> GPLv2-only. GnuTLS, being another GNU package, relicensed itself, from >> LGPLv3+ to LGPLv2.1. And as of now the most popular free license is MIT/X11 >> and then followed by GPLv2, and then the list goes: Apache 2.0, 3-clause BSD >> then finally GPLv3. Please explain why the bulk of GPLv2-licensed projects >> are not moving to GPLv3. >> > > Many of them are. Many are not. It is currently more advantageous to > stay GPLv2.1+ or LGPLv2.1+ (the + denoting "or later") as this allows > the user more freedom and, additionally, allows the software to be > compatible, license wise, with a larger set of projects which are > GPLv2.1 only/LGPLv2.1 only. This is precisely why GNUstep stayed at > LGPL2.1+. We found that moving to LGPLv3 would damage our ability to > use many of the libraries we depended upon since they were > LGPL2.1-only. > > Your argument of popularity is a non-sequitur. It doesn't matter one > bit how popular a license is, that doesn't make it the best one to > use. The debate here is about Free Software. MIT, while a "Free > Software" license is too permissive as it will allow someone to take a > MIT licensed codebase and close it. This is not in line with second > of the four freedoms (see here: > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html) as it could allow > someone to create a version of the program which does not allow the > user to inspect how it works by looking at the code. > >> Also why more and more people are moving away from GPL-licensed GCC compiler >> in favour of a permissive-licensed LLVM/clang compiler? Apple stopped >> contributing their change back since GCC relicensed to GPLv3+. > > You're drawing a false parallel here. One of the attractive features > of LLVM/clang is it's support of allowing the parser to be used > separate from the compiler. LLVM has separated out many of its > components to be useful elsewhere. GCC, honestly, lacks this > capability and does so on purpose. > > There have been discussions about doing this in GCC to provide similar > functionality, but I'm not sure if those discussions ever led > anywhere. > > Additionally Apple did this, not because of the license, but because > they were already developing LLVM/Clang. The clang parser libraries > are at the heart of Xcode's ability to colorize syntax, find errors > while typing and make suggestions for corrections while the user is > working rather than at runtime. This is a powerful feature which GCC > is not currently capable of due to it's architecture as described > above. The issue of Apple and other companies switching from using > GCC to LLVM/clang is much more complex than JUST GPLv3. > > Anyway, as I said, it is not really useful to start a flamewar about > licenses here. > > GC > -- > Gregory Casamento > GNUstep Lead Developer / OLC, Principal Consultant > http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com > http://ind.ie/phoenix/ -- Gregory Casamento GNUstep Lead Developer / OLC, Principal Consultant http://www.gnustep.org - http://heronsperch.blogspot.com http://ind.ie/phoenix/ _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
