On 13 Sep 2001, Ben Bucksch wrote:
>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>> The only case that would be a problem is distributing the proprietary
>> plugin with the GPLed Mozilla with the intent of using the whole as a
>> Flash renderer. In practice, I see no one doing that.
>
> Why not? Nokia does distribute Mozilla with the closed-source Flash and
> RealPlayer. Users won't download that themselves. The fact that Flash
> and RealPlayer do work out of the box is a major selling argument for Nokia.
You mis-read what I wrote. Nokia do not intend their product to be used as
a Flash Renderer, they intend it to be used as a web browser. The point is
that the plugins are not deriative works (they in fact can be created,
compiled and used totally independently of the hypothetical GPL Mozilla).
They are distinct products. And since they are not deriative works, they
can be shipped together with GPL product without breaching the GPL
license. That, at least, is my reading of the GPL. Did I miss a particular
clause that denies even this?
> That's exactly what happens here - the GPL does not only "catch"
> proprietary code, but also other open-source code, which does nothing
> to harm anyone.
IMHO, the fact that free code may be used in conjunction with non-free
code is a problem because it doesn't emphasise that non-free code is
(IMHO) wrong.
>> FWIW, the english version of that page does not contain the string
>> "forc" -- could you point out the exact sections you disagree with?
>>
> | Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs
> | gives our community a real boost. At least one application program
> | is free software today specifically because that was necessary for
> | using Readline.
How is that forcing anyone? The authors of the application were free to
write their own Readline library -- they made a choice to use GPL software
and therefore be GPL themselves. I consider this a victory, and do not see
where anyone was forced to do anything. Could you explain what you mean?
>>> But, it also says "We free software developers should support one
>>> another.". (I make no distinction between free software and open
>>> source here.)
>>>
>> You may not -- the author of that page, and me, for that matter, _do_
>> make such a distinction.
>
> As a matter of fact, Stallman does consider the MPL to be Free Software
> (in his definition even), and BSD and others, too.
I didn't say he didn't. Yes, the MPL and the BSD are free software
licenses. My point was that "open source" and "free software" are
different, which is easily proved by comparing their definitions.
> So, the GPL does in fact violate the goal that "free software (in
> Stallman's deinfition) developers should support one another", because
> it disallows the use of these apps together (see below for an example).
No. The MPL (and others) violate that goal by supporting non-free software
as well as free software, thus diluting the message that free software is
important. The GPL does not support developers that support proprietary
software, that was one of the main goals of the GPL. That is in line with
the goal you quote above.
>> The requirement that the source of applications be
>> open is a side effect of requiring that the program be free for users
>> to do whatever they like with it
>
> But I can't do with it whatever I like.
You can't distribute it linked with proprietary software, no. That is to
protect your end users -- if you could, then they would not be guarenteed
freedom as well. You, however, on your own machine, can do what you like.
It's only when you redistribute it that restrictions come into play.
> As a concrete example, I can't use kaffe to replace Sun's
> closed-source JRE, because kaffe is under the GPL and the plugin
> interface is to link a lib, not to invoke an app.
You can do so so long as you don't distribute the result. (Assuming that
this doesn't break Sun's license.)
That is, the GPL doesn't stop you doing anything *on your machine*. It
only stops you from doing certain things when it comes to redistributing
the code in some form.
> As another example, there is a GPL'ed implementation of Flash
> <http://www.swift-tools.com/Flash/>.
>
> Now, there would be only RealPlayer and we'd have a full, Free
> Software/Open-Source browsing suite with all bells and whistles, if it
> were not for these icky licensing issues the GPL creates.
"We'd have a full, Free Software browsing suite with all the bells and
whistles, if it were not for these icky proprietary plugins."
> You make the assumption that proprietary code is always evil.
Evil? No. I rarely make statements regarding something being evil.
Proprietary code is not evil, it is merely an annoyance, something which
reduces my freedom to do what I want on my PC.
> I am not sure about that. For example, if proprietary code is always
> bad, why is it allowed to run proprietary programs on GNU/Linux?
Because if you WANT to limit YOUR freedom, that is your choice. However,
you may not (per the GPL) take GPL code and give it to someone else
contaminated with proprietary code, because then that person would not
have the same freedoms.
>>>> And that is exactly WHY I am against using the LGPL. An LGPL project
>>>> should NOT be using free software code.
>>>>
>>> Are you saying that LGPL code is not "free"?
>>>
>> It's not strong copyleft.
>
> "Free Software" != "strong copyleft". See above.
I didn't say it was. The LGPL is free. However, it is not strong copyleft.
> But you were saying "free software"; not "strong copyleft". Both are
> completely different "beasts".
My bad. I am against the LGPL (and the MPL, and the BSD license, etc)
because free software projects should not, IMHO, promote or support
proprietary projects.
>>>> If the project wants the code that
>>>> much, it should switch to a strong copyleft free software license.
>>>>
>>> It won't.
>>>
>> There are examples of companies switching to the GPL in order to use
>> other GPL code. It has happened, it can happen again. It *won't* happen
>> if we don't require it.
>
> Most LGPL projects won't switch to GPL, just to use one class of GPL code.
In that case they will have to write their own web browser... or at least,
they would if we were GPL. We're not, so the point is moot.
>>>> we should move Mozilla to the GPL -- so that this kind of problem
>>>> does not arise.
>>>>
>>> This is impossible. People who contributed code to Mozilla are
>>> objecting that.
Who?
>>
>> People who contributed to Mozilla are objecting other changes too! :-)
>
> But here, an objection of them makes the change legally impossible.
I meant, people who contributed to Mozilla are objecting to other license
changes too.
>> What exactly is your definition of free?
>>
> Absense of restrictions. Be able to do whatever I want to.
Including limiting other people's freedoms?
>> As an author of free software, I am against people taking my code and
>> using it with code that they are not making free. The GPL protects me
>> against that; other licenses typically do not.
>
> As another author of free software, I am not generally against people
> taking my code and using it with code that they are not making free.
That is to be commended. (I guess.) :-)
> I am more concerned about evil manners as practiced by Microsoft and
> others, like
>
> * proprietary (secret, patented, otherwise legally protected) data
> exchange / long-time storage formats (those should be created
> publically and used freely)
> * hindering competition by disallowing replacements of the
> proprietary code.
To add to the list:
* using one monopoly to create new monopolies artificially.
Yes, all three of these things are unfortunate. (I don't know about
"evil". That seems a bit strong. They are, after all, just running their
business in order to make money. It's not like they are killing people or
torturing children or anything.)
>>> I don't speak less about proprietary environments, but other open
>>> source environments, like the MPL, LGPL etc etc..
>>>
>> But the only reason to use those environments instead of the GPL is to
>> allow the use of proprietary code!!
>
> No. The GPL disallows any other licence than has terms that go bejond
> the GPL. It is thinkable that there are reasonable additional terms,
> which would render such a license incompatible with the GPL.
It is; however, I have yet to see another strong copyleft license, so this
problem does not yet exist. When it does, they could be made compatible
simply by releasing a compatible GPL Version 3, and using the "at your
option, a later version" clause in the GPL.
--
Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL
/. `- ' ( `--'
`- , ) - > ) \
irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
