2013/8/13 Ryan Bramantya <[email protected]>
> 2013/8/13 Kevin Krammer <[email protected]>
>
>> Better is dependent on context on the what goals one wants to achieve,
>> etc.
>> Richard Stallman's goal is always to protect the four freedoms he
>> identified
>> as important decades ago.
>> In your example taking away the excuse of licensing on code dealing with
>> an
>> open format helps the user's freedom (no data lock-in) more than ensuring
>> all
>> of the products using the format respect the freedoms as well.
>> It is a trade-off, a compromise.
>>
>
> All of our discussion basically to choose the prefer license on context
> what goals LXDE want to achieve. And I recommend LGPL for this purpose.
>
>
>> We as IT professionals see a greater picture, we know that it is being
>> used in
>> tons of devices that normal people do not even consider to be computer
>> equipment, etc.
>>
>
> But LXDE is not a toaster or microwave software. It was a community
> targeted to provide applications for desktop computer or PC. This is why a
> collaboration between free software developer community become important
> and LGPL become solution to narrow the distance between communities that
> might have different philosophy.
>
>
>> Sure, I don't have any issue with that.
>> I just don't see what difference it would make, application code is not
>> something anyone will link against, any modification is equally affected
>> by
>> LGPL or GPL license terms.
>>
>
> Really? The difference are LGPL can become GPL, but not vice versa. LGPL
> can dynamically linked with BSD, Apache, MPL, and other libraries, but GPL
> will infecting others license, and in some case they even incompatible.
> Truly, there are many end user software who are licensed under non-GPL
> license whatever reason they believed was, such as : Apache OpenOffice,
> Calligra Suite, Firefox, QtCreator, and many other software. So what's the
> point for free software foundation to change the term GNU LGPL from "GNU
> Library GPL" to "GNU Lesser GPL" if LGPL only suitable for library and not
> make any difference for applications.
>
>
>> KDE software is known to run on proprietary platforms such as Mac OSX or
>> Microsoft Windows, WebKit is known to be part of Mac OSX, Apple iOS, and
>> BlackBerry10.
>
>
> Run is a different matter from "become part of". Copyleft software will
> not become a part of full proprietary systems. As for WebKit at least it
> doesn't under copyleft license which make releasing a full proprietary
> applications possible. And in the worst case, GPL applications couldn't
> appear in Mac AppStore because licensing issues.
>
>
> 2013/8/13 Kevin Krammer <[email protected]>
>
>> Foruntately most infectious code is never released under GPL, actually I
>> have
>> never heard of any virus being released under GPL.
>> Those are mostly closed source.
>>
>
> I think Hong Jen Yee talked about infectious license, not infectious
> code.
>
>
>> > We may gain more users and possibly more developers who like a more
>> > permissive license, but we lose much potentially reusable code at the
>> > same time.
>>
>> I don't think this would be a huge loss, it would only apply to code with
>> authors who don't want their code to be reused.
>
>
> I think the BSD and Apache community who avoid GPL is the most altruist
> free software communities which very sincerely release their code for the
> public without needed every change in the code to should be given back to
> base code. And the main reason I start this discussion is not for the sake
> of proprietary software, but for every free software communities whatever
> philosophies they believe was.
>
> 2013/8/13 PCMan <[email protected]>
>
>> In conclusion, I support the idea of:
>> 1. libs use LGPL or MIT
>> 2. apps can use GPL or LGPL.
>> 3. develop new apps with LGPL if possible, and do not relicense
>> existing GPL'd apps.
>> 4. linking GPL and LGPL'd components is easy. Just use dbus. Calling a
>> GPL'd program from a non-GPL one via dbus is perfectly legal and do
>> not involve lib linking at all. It's safe for system services to be in
>> GPL as long as it can be called via IPC.
>>
>
> Hi, Hong Jen Yee.
> I am not a developer. I am just a user that want to share his opinion and
> hope it will become a good idea for LXDE-Qt communities. No matter how
> strong my argument was, but the persons who have the rights to decide is
> you and many other LXDE-Qt contributors. Personally I am very satisfied
> with your decision which means that our discussion is ended here.
>
> The reason for me to convince LXDE-Qt to remain neutral is because I tired
> to see so many fragmentation in free software communities. Instead of
> making a better and usable applications, every communities make too many
> similar software that sometiems caused just by the difference between
> license and goal that they believe. PySide vs PyQt, OpenOffice vs
> LibreOffice, Clang vs GCC is some example of them. Even KDE vs GNOME which
> become the founders of so many applications which eventually starting from
> K*** letter or G*** letter are caused by licensing issue from Qt at the
> time GNOME was developed. Sometimes some people said it was the matter of
> choice, but I believe it was just wasting a time. With so many choice of
> free GNU/Linux OS distributions and free software applications, common
> users still choose to purchasing Windows and OS X, Photoshop and CorelDraw,
> instead of using LinuxMint and PC-BSD, or OpenOffice and LibreOffice. It
> means that end user doesn't really care what license that application use.
> They only care with application that suitable with they needs and ease of
> use from their perspective.
>
> I am very sick to hear if some license categorized as free software, but
> not compatible with GPL. How could a license called a free software license
> in one side, but cannot be used with another free software license in
> another side (it seems only GPL and AGPL which make the problem) . Does it
> means GPL restricting other free software licenses? Even in the preamble of
> GPL prior GNU GPL 3 version, it was said *"To protect your rights, we
> need to make RESTRICTIONS"*. Oh, come on...?
>
> LGPL as the preferred license in LXDE-Qt seems become a compromise
> solution to narrow the gap between Copyright, Copyleft, and Copycenter
> believers. With LGPL, I hope LXDE-Qt applications and library can be reused
> as many as possible for creating the best free software thus increasing
> collaboration between communities. And the advantages of LXDE-Qt over any
> other current desktop environments is the developers keep modularization
> between libraries and avoid interdependencies therefore their can be used
> outside LXDE environment without the needed with too many dependencies.
>
> FreeBSD, OpenOffice, CalligraSuite, QtCreator, Thunderbird, Chromium and
> many other non-GPL applications prove to us if choosing non-GPL for
> applications is very sensible and will not kill their further development
> just because they scare if every change with their code will not given back
> to their code base and become proprietary.
>
> See also :
>
> - Why you should use a BSD style license for your Open Source
> Project<http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html>
> - Why I (A/L)GPL <http://zedshaw.com/essays/why_i_gpl.html>
> - Linux
> FAQ<http://web.archive.org/web/20120430113349/http://linux-faq.org/eng/index.html>
>
>
> Thanks to:
>
>
> - Hong Jen yee
> - Kevin
> - Christian
> - Benjamin
> - Stephan
> - Andrej
>
> And for every one who read and keep this discussion conducive and friendly.
>
>
>
>
> Linux Torvlads said
>
> "*I use the best tool for the job, even if that includes proprietary
> software.*"
>
>
> Clement Lefebvre (Linux Mint Founder) also said:
>
> "*Freedom should be granted to the developer to decide whether he wants
> to distribute his source code or not. I don't see why he wouldn't (unless
> he's not familiar with open source and maybe scared of not generating
> profit... I don't know) but the thing is, this is his choice. Similarly
> it's your choice and your freedom to use his software or not. Having some
> political movement telling you to restrict your own choice and boycotting
> good and helpful software just because you didn't get the source code with
> it is simply going against your own freedom.*"
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ryan Bram
>
--
Best regards,
Ryan Bram
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
