On Tuesday, 2013-08-13, Ryan Bramantya <[email protected]> wrote: > 2013/8/13 Kevin Krammer <[email protected]>
> > 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. I don't see why this would have anything to do with the success of Free Software, but yes, I know that. > 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. I was under the impression that there was an agreement on this, but this as disconnected as the above relevelation I might have missed the change in topic. > > 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? Yes. Both licenses require that modifications are licensed reciprocally when distributed. The two licenses are only different when the code is used in unmodified form. > The difference are LGPL can become GPL, but not vice versa. Not automatically, but this has been done uncountable number of times. > LGPL > can dynamically linked with BSD, Apache, MPL, and other libraries, but GPL > will infecting others license, and in some case they even incompatible. There are a lot of licenses that are incompatible with other licenses. Not sure what you mean with "infecting" but neither of the above license will change the license of code not under its license. > 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. Because they consider it a lesser form of the GPL and wanted to avoid that people pick LGPL for libraries just because that was what it is for. I don't think it changed anything perception wise though, almost everyone still thinks of LGPL as "GPL for libraries". > > 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". I never claimed "part of". I wrote, and I quote, "KDE software, for example, is being used on operating system ranging from extremely persmissive to fully proprietary." Someone earlier came up with the myth that Free Software software would somehow be problematic on proprietary systems. Which of course we all know it is not. Still something that cannot be left unchallenged. WebKit is a example of "part of" though. > Copyleft software will not > become a part of full proprietary systems. It is. WebKit is part of at least iOS and BB10 core platform. I consider at least iOS to be fully proprietary systems, BB10 has many more FOSS libraries in its SDK. > As for WebKit at least it > doesn't under copyleft license which make releasing a full proprietary > applications possible. Interesting. Until now I was only aware of copyleft licensed WebKit implementations, e.g. LGPL licensed QtWebKit. Which vendor uses a non-copyleft licensed version? > And in the worst case, GPL applications couldn't > appear in Mac AppStore because licensing issues. Yes, Apple likes to restrict everyone they are dealing with, users, developers, business partners, sellers, whatnot. Forunately Mac OSX is not a walled garden platform, having plenty of alternative installations methods available to choose from :) > 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. I considered that but it was an even more unlikely interpretation. None if the licenses in the context of this discussion has any clauses that could be characterized as infectious. > > > 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. Maybe a misunderstanding. I was commenting on the "but we lose much potentially reusable code" part. Which in turn was referring to GPL licensed application code. BSD and Apache comunities are not like to have those. > to see so many fragmentation in free software communities. Instead of > making a better and usable applications, every communities make too many I am sure you didn't want to write "instead of", offending all application developers who work hard to make their applications as good as possible. 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
