On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Kustaa Nyholm via RT <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Brett, > > thanks for the answer. I'm not really a party to this issue but very > interested anyway. > > Brett Smith wrote: > >> However, both versions of the GNU GPL have language which prevent this >> exemption from applying to libraries that are actually distributed in >> tandem with the GPLed software. > Could you pin point the "language" here so that we (GPL users) would > understand better what it is that this is based on. > > > >> >> The reason the GPL works this way is because we need to keep the System >> Library exception very narrow. If we make it too easy for libraries to >> qualify as System Libraries, it will become feasible for companies to >> change free software and keep the changes proprietary by putting them in >> a "System Library." > Seems like a bad way of trying to achieve this goal. Would it not have > been better to specify that the Free software cannot be changed so > that it can only be used with proprietary libraries for which no > Free alternatives are available?
Such a formulation is too vague to be of any use. Try making it more explicit and you'll see it's not really that easy. > Like in this instance, the GPL seems to work against it's stated goals. I don't think so. I actually disagree with Brett in the sense that I think GPL 3 (not GPL 2) allows the distribution in question. But otherwise, I agree that System Library exception is to be kept narrow, for the precise reasons he stated. >> To the best of my knowledge, this exact situation is the only one that >> presents problems for distributors. > And problems for users, very much for the users! > >> As far as I'm aware, on every other >> major operating system in use today, all the libraries that would >> qualify as System Libraries come with the operating system, or are at >> least part of the standard install. The runtime libraries for >> Microsoft's compilers are the only exception. > It maybe the 'only' exception but Windows is 95% or something of all > computer users, thinking otherwise is leaving in fantasy world, no matter how > much I dislike many of the business practices and things that M$ stands for. > > Also your sentence above seems to imply that actually runtime libraries > for Microsoft's compilers would be System Libraries if they were > distributed with the OS or were part of the standard install? > > Not a very coherent argument, especially as what we are talking about > here is not some malicious attempt to hijack Free software for > proprietary causes but for making life for Free software users > much easier and thus the use of Free software more wide spread. > > >>> >> No. Distributing the Octave binaries and the runtime libraries on the >> same media would be problematic, regardless of the specific medium used. > That is a very problematic sentence. What if the medium is a the net? > Distributing on the same server is forbidden? On the same (Inter)net? > >> >> I think the Windows binary distribution should simply provide users with >> instructions to obtain the libraries from Microsoft's site. I realize >> that's inconvenient, but hopefully it's not too bad, and I think it's a >> worthwhile change to avoid any GPL trouble. > Yeah, it *is* too bad. Very, very few Windows users (and remember > that is 95% of the potential user base) are able to do this and even if > they are, they are not willing to do this. Too bad for GPLed software, > good for proprietary software. Personally, being a mainly Mac OS X user, > I have even a lower threshold. If I cannot double click on a disk image > on webpage and run the software *without installing* it at all, there needs > to be a very, very, very good reason for me to even try any software. > GPLed software needs to protect itself against proprietarization (that's the point of GPL) and some sacrifices seem necessary to achieve this goal. If you have a better idea for GPL4, preserving its main goals, share it with the FSF. > >> >> If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me; I'll be >> on the lookout for those, and try to respond as quickly as possible. > I think we all appreciate your efforts. > > Like I declared I have no real vested interest in octave (except a happy > user on Mac OS X) but out of curiosity I talked to a lawyer about this > and so for the record her opinion was that FSF is not really party the > license agreement between those who release software under GPL and > those who use the software. So it is pretty much up those to put > the spin on the license in court if it comes to that, not FSF. > > As an ever increasing number of people contribute to a GPL licensed piece of > software, releasing their creative work under *their* assumption of what the > GPL means on any given date it is a horrible mess! Think of some > developer testifying that 'I released my contribution under the assumption > that <some assumption>... and now I'm detracting that contribution > because it seems that GPL means <something else>, and I demand that > all those users that are using the software stop using it'. > Every developer using GPL is supposed to read it and understand it. If he relies instead on what he's told from other sources, he does so at his own risk. I agree with your point that the FSF position to GPL is not normative, only advisory. GPL is bound by its own wording; and only courts are entitled to resolve disputes that can't be resolved otherwise. regards -- RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek computing expert & GNU Octave developer Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU) Prague, Czech Republic url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & iPhoneDevCamp asthey present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://www.creativitycat.com _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
