Ian Hickson wrote:
>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?
>
Macromedia Flash is primarily a plugin. It is a proprietary library
loaded by Mozilla. I thought, this is what the GPL disallows.
The fact that you *can* run RealPlayer (or Flash?) stand-alone is
irrelevant, to my knowledge.
>>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.
>
Note the "may" and "problem". MPL code (by itself) does not harm you in
any way, and it is in fact intended to be usually used solely, without
any proprietary code. I don't see how MPL code would harm you.
*If* you choose to use proprietary code with it, *then* you might harm
yourself. But you don't have to do so; and even if you do, it's not the
MPL harming you (but the proprietary code by your very own decision).
>>>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?
>
If I want to use readline, I am forced to use the GPL. That's about as
much force as the author of readline can exercise, and he makes full use
of that force.
Similarily, a GPLed Mozilla might force Macromedia to release the Flash
Player under the GPL. That's about the same force as I am forced to use
Microsoft products when I want to read MS Word documents. And I very
much dislike the latter. Why should I exercise a similar force on others?
(Please don't argue with "But the GPL is good and Microsoft does it only
to get even richer". That's not the point and even arguable.)
>>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.
>
You said even "An LGPL project should NOT be using free software code",
although the LGPL is itself Free Software.
>My point was that "open source" and "free software" are
>different, which is easily proved by comparing their definitions.
>
Can you elaborate what the exact difference is? I find it hard to find.
>>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,
>
No, support is not exclusive.
>thus diluting the message that free software is important.
>
That "message" is a completely different issue. It is completely
arguable, how that message should be carried out.
>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.
>
Wrong. The MPL is free software. Developers using the MPL are thus free
software developers. The GPL does not support them. Thus, the GPL
violates "free software developers should support one another".
>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.
>
How often have I to repeat that? *It is not about proprietary software.*
*It is about the MPL together with the GPL.* The MPL is not proprietary
software. Nevertheless, I can't use it with the GPL.
And that in fact harms end-users, because I can distribute Beonex
Communicator (which is Free Software) with Sun's JRE (which is
proprietary), but I can't distribute it with kaffe (which is Free
Software). So, they might end up using Sun's closed-source JRE, while
they could be using Free Software only.
>>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.
>
I am speaking in this case for Beonex. I want to promote free software
with Beonex, and I find Sun's redistribution license terms ridiculous,
so I want to offer a Beonex Communicator with a Free Software Java VM
and Flash viewer. I can't.
If users need to download and install them separately, this is a severe
problem for the wide acceptance. I don't even know, if I violate the GPL
by clearly encouraging users to use Beonex Communicator together with kaffe.
>"We'd have a full, Free Software browsing suite with all the bells and
>whistles, if it were not for these icky proprietary plugins."
>
?
>Proprietary code is not evil, it is merely an annoyance, something which
>reduces my freedom to do what I want on my PC.
>
Agreed.
>>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.
>
I can argue the same for MPL.
>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.
>
But I can distribute GNU/Linux with proprietary applications installed
on it.
>>>>This is impossible. People who contributed code to Mozilla are
>>>>objecting that.
>>>>
>Who?
>
cls, if I understood him correctly. Read a few months, maybe a year,
back in this group.
>>>What exactly is your definition of free?
>>>
>>Absense of restrictions. Be able to do whatever I want to.
>>
>Including limiting other people's freedoms?
>
Yes. Absolute freedom of mine would severely restrict the freedom of
others. That's why absolute freedom is not possible in this world for us.
(Please don't try to map that to licenses, because that's much too high
level. Otherwise, I'll start arguing that the GPL is communistic, which
is similarily valid/invalid.)
>>>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.) :-)
>
Thanks :-).
(I'm a bit confused, beacuse that seems to contradict, what you said
before, but well... :) )
>[Microsoft is], after all, just running their
>business in order to make money.
>
I think, they are doing a bit more than "just running their business".
>>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.
>
Stallman proved with the MPL that he is unwilling to alter the GPL to
make it compatible with other Free Software licenses.
