Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > I can change the code to the GPL at any moment according to the LGPL. > But that doesn't make sens if not almost all developers agree doing > that.
I am the current project maintainer, and I am saying that I don't want you to. End of argument. If you want to go and make a GPL plex86 clone then please go and do it--from scratch--and leave us here all alone. We spent 6 months discussing what the license should be the first time around, and we are just wasting our time here now. > > > > I don't see what licensing has to do with architectural defects. Architecture is a complete plan for success--and for what you may do after achieving that success. I think that we made the right decision the first time around--although I wasn't sure at first, I feel sure now. > > > > When a real architect puts together a plan, they > > consider as many significant things as possible before > > making the final blue print and certainly before > > implementing. What a lot of OSS/free/libre hackers > > do mistakenly is considering only the technical and > > philisophical parameters. This is akin to designing > > a sky-scraper without looking into building code. > > Sounds good in class, sucks hairy ass in the > > real world dude. > > > > If you want a reasonably complex program to succeed > > and you think it's gonna need the support of some > > of the big boys, you better start thinking about > > what makes them happy too. This is where you can > > take that GNU diatribe and flush it down the > > toilet. This may have been a little strong for most people--but here Kevin has a really important point. A computer program isn't just a program anymore--it, like the works of a playwright, a novelist, or even a politician must be considered in light of the bigger picture. If the big picture includes the options of the programmer as well as the rights of the user then all is well. > > This doesn't make sense and doesn't have any good arguments. I know at > least one company with the GNU philosophy which succeed and that's > cygnus. > I don't want to get into this too much--but one example does not make the rule. Also, define success--if you mean corporate success (as Kevin obviously does), then the GPL is a big thorn in the side to most traditional corporate infrastructures; but if you mean idealogical success then cyngus is indeed a good example. At this time it is good to remember that idealogoy isn't the only tool in the war to create better, more cosmopolitian, more egalitarian, and possibly more utilitarian software, computer systems, and digital systems law. Sometimes you must work within the system to change it. Sometimes you don't need to. In any case Plex86 chose its group interpretation of the solution of this problem a couple of years ago and decided to move on. > > I personally pinged RMS on a couple issues which > > would have been simple to correct. But the guy > > _insists_ on maintaining his personal philisophical > > spewing agenda. When he could have simply corrected > > problems at no real expense, and gained earlier > > support. I'd prefer not to get into this too much--but in general I'd like to go on the record agreeing to this basic sentiment. > > I don't see why the GPL is holding back commercial support. I think it's > rather the other way around, because of the GPL companies are sure a > competitor isn't going to make their code non-free, add extensions to it > and sell it for a lot of money. The developers of a program know the > program better than anybody, I don't think a company should fear a > competitor is going take a lot of customers away. So I don't see why the > GPL is holding back commercial support. I also don't see any issues, I > hope you will tell me if you see some. > > > So back to your comment. GPL was _not_ acceptable > > to previous relationships of mine, and LGPL was > > the one people voted most for. > > But why isn't it acceptable _now_? It can be changed easily. You don't change the license to a project with the same nonchalance as turing on a light-switch. We agreed on the license already--and you implicitly agreed to it when you joined the project. End of agrument. > > > If you want something new, persue something new. If you > > wanna borrow/share other code, persue a modular and common > > interface. Otherwise don't bother. > > I totally agree. > > Most people think of licenses, but IMHO the GPL is the right license for > almost anything. The LGPL is lesser because it doesn't ensure the users > freedom as much as the GPL. I think the GPL promotes free software fine > and a lot of people agree with that. I don't see in what way the GPL > needs to be fixed. It's a good license and it does the thing for which > it was created. > Who is more important? The users or the coders? The answer to this is "none of the above." Remember this. No one person is more important than another. If we are dedicated to making a free and open-source high quality software as developers then that is what is important--to both us and to the users. Also, is the GPL the best license for everything? I don't think so. The GPL had a very narrow original purpose. I believe that it may still be suited to that purpose--but that at the same time most of us don't have that purpose in mind. We have decided on the LGPL. End of story. -- |^^^ | | |^^| |^^^ Drew Northup, N1XIM |^^| | |^^^ \ / /^^\ /^^~ |__ | | | | | |__| | |___ \/ |__| |__ | | | | | | www.plex86.org | | | /\ | | | \ ___| |__| |__| |___ web.syr.edu/~suoc/ | |___ |___ / \ \__/ \__/
