On Monday, 2013-08-12, Ryan Bramantya wrote: > Hi, Kevin,[?] Yes :) Btw, I recommend to keep the attribution lines intact.
> > WebKit and GoogleChrome which are basically derived from KHTML and > > > > Android > > > > > OS with the Linux kernel as its core is a small example to prove that > > > non-copyleft license helps the wider acceptance of free software. > > > > Two of the above mentioned projects show that copyleft licenses are no > > obstacle to wide spread accpetance. > > I never said all copyleft licenses will become obstacle to wide spread > acceptance. But for wider (not wide) acceptance, sometimes non-GPL (e.g. > LGPL or BSD) are the better choice. I am just saying that there are very well known examples of copyleft licensed software being extremely wide spread. Whether or not a different license would have resulted in even wider acceptance is impossible to tell, just like it is impossible to tell if it would have gotten to this point in the first place. There is simply no such thing as "better" when it comes to licensing. > > Aside from the Linux kernel, which is basically running this planet, > > Linux kernel are released 21 years ago. But the only times where it can be > so famous for common user (in the world countries) is in the realm of > mobile device Well, if we were simple media representatives than yes, that would probably our view. Fortunately, as IT professionals, we have a way bigger picture and know that Linux has been a tremendous success in a lot of fields long before mobile device vendors started using it. Those are basically just the tip of the iceberg, the part that is visible by the uneducated population. > > WebKit is probably even more impressive in uptake, due to it being used > > by even hardcode proprietary vendors like Apple. It has also nicely > > demonstrated that shipping > > a copyleft component on an embedded or mobile device is no problem > > either. > > Of course a copyleft component on an embedded or mobile device is no > problem. But if Apple didn't take KHTML source code, enhanced it, and > release large portion of its source code under non-copyleft license, Webkit > will not become what it can be now. There will be no QtWebkit at all. Sure, if there hadn't been KHTML or if it had been permissively licensed then there would be not WebKit. Fortunately a team of dedicated engineers at KDE created a world class HTML render engine plus a JavaScript engine and licensed it in a way that both allowed usage in prorprietary context but also ensured that improvements would become available under the same terms as well. > > I wouldn't say it is impossible, but it can be beneficial if one can get > > proprietary software vendors to at least collaborate on infrastructure > > and base technologies instead of fragmentation, hence why most free > > software communities using respective licensing for their products in > > those areas. > > These are the points of my opinion which LGPL become the best choice for > it. Obviously we at KDE (myself included) wouldn't put tons of our code under LGPL license terms if we thought it would be bad license, wouldn't we? Cheers, Kevin -- Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer KDE user support, developer mentoring
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ Lxde-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-list
