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.
>>I wholly disagree with parts of that doc. It speaks about forcing people >>to use make software "free" (GPL), and "force" is not "free" in my book. >> >To take this to an extreme: for me to be free, I have to be assured that >no one will harm me. If someone tries to harm me, they must be forced to >fail (by catching them and placing them in prison, typically). Does that >mean that I am not free? > Yes, it does, if *you* might happen to be catched and arrested, although you did nothing to harm others. 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. >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. >>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. 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). >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. 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. 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. (Admitedly, this was probably the full intention of the creators of kaffe, but I don't think so for the Flash implementation.) >>That's exactly my point - allowing other projects to use our code. >> >That may be your point, but it is not my point, which is to ensure my >freedom to do what I like with the code. > I can't with the GPL. *shrug* >>If we are starting fights with "free" vs. "open" and deny each other >>code, we only harm ourselves, IMO. >> >Mine is to increase freedom. > me too. >Whether the source is used by one person or many does not really matter. > It does in the sense that giving a few people full freedom while denying it to others is not necessarily better than giving a few people full freedom and others partial freedom. >: Maximizing the number of users is not our aim. Rather, we are trying to >: give the crucial freedoms to as many users as possible. In general, >: proprietary software projects hinder rather than help the cause of >: freedom. > I don't speak about proprietary code here, which the MPL certainly isn't. I am speaking about combining MPL code with GPL code. You make the assumption that proprietary code is always evil. 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? >>>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. >>That doesn't seem to be supported by >><http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>. >> >That page discusses mainly what is free vs what is not. It only touches on >what is strong copyleft and what is not. This page covers that topic: > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html > But you were saying "free software"; not "strong copyleft". Both are completely different "beasts". >>>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. >>>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. >> >People who contributed to Mozilla are objecting other changes too! :-) > But here, an objection of them makes the change legally impossible. >>I am not one of them, as long as my code is still usable/available >>under terms which *I* consider free, for which the GPL does not qualify. >> >What exactly is your definition of free? > Absense of restrictions. Be able to do whatever I want to. >>(That's why I think that the term "Free Software" is wholly >>inappropriate and misleading.) >> (For the record: At that point, I was confused about the term by your use of the term. It might not be true anymore.) >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. I am more concerned about evil manners as practiced by Microsoft and others, like * proprietary (secret, patended, 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. For example, in the long term, proprietary code with fair legalese and using open formats might be better than an Free Software project implementing standards under control of an evil and powerful empire. >>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. The GPL is not the only true and one and only license, not even in an Free Software- / Open-Source-only world.
