Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Hubert Figuiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Seriously, that even more reason for hoping the relicensing of > libgladeui as LGPL does not happen. Basically, what you are proposing, > is that Glade be licensed in a way that it would favor fragmenting GNOME > while removing freedom to their users. Upon reading this it became apparent to me what this is really all about. I will not tolerate watching my work being used in any kind of popularity contest a moment longer, its not ethical by my standards not to mention insulting. Juan wont stand for it either. If you think this attitude is working for us, its not - were six years down the line, builder is here, I'm still alone here and what I can do is sometimes barely enough at best. Except I had some help, and Juan, I'm making a point because in my eyes he is a true gangster, he grew up in Argentina and lived through an economical crisis, for him participating in Glade meant possible loophole in the system - now even as an Argentinian with an existent but unrecognizable education he can get a job with a European or American company, and thats not enough to be fair. In the world we live in, the poorest of Bolivians that could afford no education must be allowed to see eye to eye and compete fairly with the rest of the world, nothing less is acceptable. This is my last email on the topic. Regards, -Tristan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
Hi Tristan! Just a sidenote (I am not joing the free software discussion): I think you will get some difficulties relicensing when not all authors agree and as far as I have understood Naba, he doesn't. I have not constributed too much to glade and you could probably replace my code but I don't agree either. So, isn't this a phantom discussion, anyway? Regards. Johannnes Am Montag, den 03.11.2008, 17:02 -0500 schrieb Tristan Van Berkom: > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Linus decided that Bitkeeper was fine for his needs, and started using > > it and publishing his repository in a public Bitkeeper repository. > > Bitkeeper guy (Larry McVoy) gave free copies of the client to free > > software developers. > [...] > > Thankyou Dave that was a very insightful read for me, as far as I can > see the risks at hand involve a hypothetical situation where the community > gets addicted to a non-free extension of Glade, my relicensing of Glade > does not go beyond LGPL, and to keep us in check, I definatly invite > more freedom lovers to contribute and spread the ownership of authorial > copyright thinner ;-) > > I was at first ambivalent about the licensing of the plugins for libgladeui > use as a Gtk+ interface designer (soon libgladeui will not have a runtime > dependency on gtk+ at all), after discussing it further with my main > Glade colleague Juan; I am confidant that we also want them LGPL. > > Making non-free extensions of Glade possible does not mean that free > Glade will not exist. I welcome the competition firstly, and Juan > and I still strongly agree that allowing non-free extensions of Glade > will help to attract a larger user base to Gtk+, which consists of > free and proprietary softwares alike. > > I am not here to deny anyone free use of Glade, that would include > any company who might need to write a proper sdk for their GNU/Linux > based embedded/handheld/realtime/insert-flavour-here platform. > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not to metion the fact that merely using the non-free program > > sends the message that non-free software is ok. > [...] > > Commercial software endevours as it stands are already high-risk affairs, > we need people to build cathedrals out of our bazaar, these are > valuable endevours that help alot with innovation and computing on > a whole, cathedrals that dont have a proper bazaar as their foundation > will come crashing down with security holes, careless mistakes and > downright lack of public scrutiny (we've all seen it before). > > This is a lesson that commercial vendors will have to learn the > hard way, and if free software is anywhere near as superiour as > I believe it to be, commercial vendor's success will inevitably > be measured by their willingness to cooperate (give and take) with > the bazaar that is free software. When such an endevour is > actually successful, realistically they only have a year or two > until someone has come up with a free solution for their project, > which is a fair lapse of time if you ask me, not more, not less. > So I would have to thank them for coming up with something that > we havent already thought of ourselves, and even prototyping it > for us in a product. > > If you really think that selling any software is not OK, > to the point of which using any proprietary software sends > a bad message, I can only say dont use proprietary software > at all, I wont stand in the way of your freedom in a consumers > market to use a free or proprietary tool for your own purposes. > > Regards, >-Tristan > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
"Tristan Van Berkom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > commercial vendor's success will inevitably > be measured by their willingness to cooperate (give and take) with > the bazaar that is free software. There's an excellent article by David Wheeler explaining why this doesn't work, citing real examples from the last ten years: http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd > I welcome the competition With the LGPL, you will share, and your competitors won't. Your work will benefit them, and their work won't benfit you. The risk is that you'll always have N features and they'll have N+M, so many users will end up using non-free versions of your software. These versions might include spyware, or might break GNOME standards, or might refuse to work with certain software packages, or might lock them in over time by not offering an "export" feature ...etc. > If you really think that selling any software is not OK, Selling free software is fine. It's ok with the licence, and it's an important way to raise funds to further improve free software. > I wont stand in the way of your freedom in a consumers > market to use a free or proprietary tool for your own purposes. There is coercion and unfair competition involved in people's choice to use non-free software. There is also a lack of awareness. -- Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 477 36 44 19, http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ Support free software, join FSFE's Fellowship: http://fsfe.org Recent blog entries: http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/status_of_fsfe_s_legal_dept_ftf http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/fsfe_s_antitrust_victory_with_samba http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/openstreetmap_considers_new_licence http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/why_european_software_patents_are_legally_invalid ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 17:02 -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > I am not here to deny anyone free use of Glade, that would include > any company who might need to write a proper sdk for their GNU/Linux > based embedded/handheld/realtime/insert-flavour-here platform. Seriously, that even more reason for hoping the relicensing of libgladeui as LGPL does not happen. Basically, what you are proposing, is that Glade be licensed in a way that it would favor fragmenting GNOME while removing freedom to their users. Linux and GNOME are not meant to be a cheap replacement to other non-Free software. They are meant to be Free Software, empower users and application developers. And I consider that these vendor that take Linux and GNOME and make it proprietary in some way or the other are actually riping off this work. Hub ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Linus decided that Bitkeeper was fine for his needs, and started using > it and publishing his repository in a public Bitkeeper repository. > Bitkeeper guy (Larry McVoy) gave free copies of the client to free > software developers. [...] Thankyou Dave that was a very insightful read for me, as far as I can see the risks at hand involve a hypothetical situation where the community gets addicted to a non-free extension of Glade, my relicensing of Glade does not go beyond LGPL, and to keep us in check, I definatly invite more freedom lovers to contribute and spread the ownership of authorial copyright thinner ;-) I was at first ambivalent about the licensing of the plugins for libgladeui use as a Gtk+ interface designer (soon libgladeui will not have a runtime dependency on gtk+ at all), after discussing it further with my main Glade colleague Juan; I am confidant that we also want them LGPL. Making non-free extensions of Glade possible does not mean that free Glade will not exist. I welcome the competition firstly, and Juan and I still strongly agree that allowing non-free extensions of Glade will help to attract a larger user base to Gtk+, which consists of free and proprietary softwares alike. I am not here to deny anyone free use of Glade, that would include any company who might need to write a proper sdk for their GNU/Linux based embedded/handheld/realtime/insert-flavour-here platform. On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not to metion the fact that merely using the non-free program > sends the message that non-free software is ok. [...] Commercial software endevours as it stands are already high-risk affairs, we need people to build cathedrals out of our bazaar, these are valuable endevours that help alot with innovation and computing on a whole, cathedrals that dont have a proper bazaar as their foundation will come crashing down with security holes, careless mistakes and downright lack of public scrutiny (we've all seen it before). This is a lesson that commercial vendors will have to learn the hard way, and if free software is anywhere near as superiour as I believe it to be, commercial vendor's success will inevitably be measured by their willingness to cooperate (give and take) with the bazaar that is free software. When such an endevour is actually successful, realistically they only have a year or two until someone has come up with a free solution for their project, which is a fair lapse of time if you ask me, not more, not less. So I would have to thank them for coming up with something that we havent already thought of ourselves, and even prototyping it for us in a product. If you really think that selling any software is not OK, to the point of which using any proprietary software sends a bad message, I can only say dont use proprietary software at all, I wont stand in the way of your freedom in a consumers market to use a free or proprietary tool for your own purposes. Regards, -Tristan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
In this context, what Hub is getting at is that if a free software project becomes beholden to a proprietary tool (be it an IDE, a debugger, a compiler or a source control system), it's an unhealthy situation in the long term. There are substantial risks involved. Not to metion the fact that merely using the non-free program sends the message that non-free software is ok. Thus, it was a good thing when BitKeeper ceased to be available gratis for development of free programs such as Linux, because that meant Linux could no longer encourage people to use BitKeeper. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/mcvoy.html. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
Hi, Just some (potentially biased) historical context for Bitkeeper... Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Hubert Figuiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> No yet another BitKeeper-like situation. We have seen what it does. > > I'm not 100% schooled on what exactly happened with BitKeeper, but my > base understanding is that the developers found ways to work around the > license in order to base a new work on free work, drop the free one > and only support proprietary extensions of BitKeeper ? Linus decided that Bitkeeper was fine for his needs, and started using it and publishing his repository in a public Bitkeeper repository. Bitkeeper guy (Larry McVoy) gave free copies of the client to free software developers. Over the years, more & more edge cases of things which Larry found unacceptable happened - he added a clause which forbade reverse engineering the client to get at the protocol, and another clause refusing people the right to use a bitkeeper repository to track the sources of competitors. Then he refused to sell the client to anyone who was even working on competing software. And one day, a break point was reached, when Andrew Tridgell was making good progress towards a clean-room reverse engineering effort of the bitkeeper client protocol. Andrew wasn't doing anything which went against the software licence, but he was working for the same group that Linus was working for, OSDL. McVoy announced that he was no longer making available the client for free under any circumstances, because of Tridge's work. After initially siding with McVoy on the issue and accusing Tridgell of screwing people over, Linus abandoned Bitkeeper and wrote the initial version of git. In this context, what Hub is getting at is that if a free software project becomes beholden to a proprietary tool (be it an IDE, a debugger, a compiler or a source control system), it's an unhealthy situation in the long term. There are substantial risks involved. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
> suspected of such a treasonous plan No one has been accused of having a treasonous plan. You've helped the free software community significantly with your Glade work (thanks!). Changing the licence to LGPL would partially undo that help, which would be unfortunate, so hopefully this licence change can be avoided. -- Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 477 36 44 19, http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ Support free software, join FSFE's Fellowship: http://fsfe.org Recent blog entries: http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/status_of_fsfe_s_legal_dept_ftf http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/fsfe_s_antitrust_victory_with_samba http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/openstreetmap_considers_new_licence http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/why_european_software_patents_are_legally_invalid ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
(apperently my other email just now missed the list due to mailing from my ordinary email address, here it is...) Hi Guys, Theres obviously been some scrutiny concerning our decision to finally relicense Glade or primarily, libgladeui - so I will try to do my best to address your concerns and then share a little where I'm coming from (remember I wouldn't be here in the first place if I didn't love you guys). On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Hubert Figuiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > No yet another BitKeeper-like situation. We have seen what it does. > > BTW, there are already 6 IDEs that are Free Software: Anjuta, KDevelop, > CodeBlock, Eclipse, MonoDevelop and Emacs[1]. So why wasting time to > allow a 7th one that could be non-free instead of making sure the > existing one rock even more. > > I'm very skeptical about the whole process of relicensing Glade to allow > non-Free derivative of it. I'm not 100% schooled on what exactly happened with BitKeeper, but my base understanding is that the developers found ways to work around the license in order to base a new work on free work, drop the free one and only support proprietary extensions of BitKeeper ? Without jumping to conclusions about the above statement all I can say is that it deeply saddens me to think that its possible that I could be suspected of such a treasonous plan, by people I respect and have come to consider as my peers; as specially when I stand here practically single-handedly responsible for delivering you freely a Glade 3 that was little more than a prototype and a dream years ago. If these are indeed the trust issues we are faced with in our community, there's obviosly nothing I can say to put your worries at ease. On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I dont see how I can agree that entering in direct competition >with anyone who wants to make a dollar from a software solution is >going to bring us to that long-term goal. > > The GNU Project has a history of competing successfully with > proprietary software. For instance, GCC competed directly with > non-free C compilers, and has done quite well against them. And the > GNU operating system as a whole has done pretty well against Unix. > > Any free IDE almost surely competes directly with non-free IDEs, but > that is no reason to give up developing them, and I am confident our > community will not. Richard, We obviously dont share the same goals as a big picture, so I wont try to pretend to. While "They" may be playing a game of keeping secrets in an attempt to cripple free software so that theirs is perceived as "better" - I cannot sit and play the same game. My weak attempts to get corporate users of free software to give back to the community will fall on deaf ears for my obvious hypocrisy. > While you may be most concerned with who makes how much money, I'm > more concerned with advancing our freedom. While I am sincerely greatfull that we have guys in the political sphere and the PR world as well, I've prefered to stay silently patient and write Glade, for exactly free, and so I will not indulge in a meaningless argument about the above statement. On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Naba Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] Naba, I was not expecting, albeit not completely surprised by your reaction, and even a little flattered that anyone would think that Glade gave you a competitive "edge". I believe your success in Anjuta and my own with Glade is based on patiently doing things correctly and getting it right, never in a hurry to make a release for the public eye, and with closed ears to criticisms and other momentarily more popular or more successful projects. > I am fully with Richard here. LGPLing libgladeui is essentially > LGPLing 'the glade application'. Being a library doesn't change that > fact, because it's mostly a means for free IDEs to integrate glade > application, like Anjuta does. We have never seen it this way - and no matter how hard we've tried to express ourselves as a core library for the editing and serialization of GObjects, obviously nobody is catching on, for instance - how come there is *still* no Glade plugin to edit gstreamer pipelines ? (*really* no offense to the gst-editor authors, I tried using that tool a number of years ago and always asked myself, if I wrote a tool to do just that, why dont they use it ?). The plugins distributed with the full glade package *are* Gtk+ interface specific and in your terms could be considered an "application of the libgladeui library" i.e. applied usage of libgladeui in the context of Gtk+ interfaces and Gtk+ widgets, I would prefer to think of these plugins as the all important use case that libgladeui was invented for; historically. The license of those plugins dont really concern me, but I also dont see why someone would want to create a Gtk+ interface editing program using libgladeui, when such an application of the librar
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
I know, it is stupid to reply to your own comment, but I forced myself to read the entire thread and I think I understand what is going on. On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 19:12 -0400, Sergey Panov wrote: > On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 02:36 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Why do you want to relicense Glade under the GNU Lesser GPL? > > > The current license, the GNU GPL, seems more appropriate since > > > it prevents the release of non-free extensions of Glade. > > ..., making the glade core available under LGPL > > in my understanding will allow people to use that library in a > > commercial IDE, > > I am confused here - I was 100% sure libglade is LGPL. That means one > can develop non-GPL application with Glade GUI designer. > Which proprietary IDE we are talking about? The list is much shorter than the list of free IDE. The <, <> propitiatory IDE with Glade support is going to be very bad PR for Gtk+ and Gnome. At least, I will be much more in peace with my company "Qt only" policy. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 02:36 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Why do you want to relicense Glade under the GNU Lesser GPL? > > The current license, the GNU GPL, seems more appropriate since > > it prevents the release of non-free extensions of Glade. > > Hi, >Basically, the glade core is intended to serve as a library to > edit glade files, making the glade core available under LGPL > in my understanding will allow people to use that library in a > commercial IDE, I am confused here - I was 100% sure libglade is LGPL. That means one can develop non-GPL application with Glade GUI designer. > while modifying the core and redistributing it > means that their modifications must also be distributed; > I'm comfortable with that, and I also wouldn't mind if the project > received a little more attention (since the current license bars > the glade core from use in any commercial IDE), > I love seeing it in Anjuta, I would love to see it all over the place :) Anjuta IDE is GPL and would be disadvantaged by proposed re-licensing. > In a utopic situation, glade being available in bleeding edge IDEs > could even help draw attention to Gtk+ and GNOME. > > It also wasnt exactly clearly stated that glade isn't > just a static application but mainly a core library > with plugins. > > Btw Im something of a fan of your work and admittedly > a little flattered to receive your mail Richard :D > > Cheers, > -Tristan > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
Hi Tristan On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 05:06:07PM -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > [...] > > As free software developers we naturally feel good to see our own > > programs in wider use. But what is really important is for free > > software to replace proprietary software. We can achieve more for > > freedom if we focus on the deeper and more important long-term goal. > > > Hi, > I dont see how I can agree that entering in direct competition > with anyone who wants to make a dollar from a software solution is > going to bring us to that long-term goal. Free software doesn't mean it cannot be put to commercial use, or profited from. Developing free software commercially and making money from it seems to actually work very well. * Companies which create free software profit from it. * There is money to hire developers who work on the project, so the rate of development is faster. * As free software evolves from many using it / modifying it / leaving feedback thanks to its freedoms, the quality of free software also increases. > Frankly, the company I formerly worked for, chose gtk+ for its C > object orented model, and it was possible because of the LGPL > licence. I would never had been paid to originally work on Glade for > the few months that Glade was my job assignment, I maybe would never > have heard of Glade, since then I can count the number of > substantialy large contributions on one hand, and half of those are > from vendors, or contractors working for vendors. > > Writing software is hard work, people rightfully want to get paid for > it, I hope that free software is the best software, and continue to believe > that we need to do it together, leverage people who are paid for their > work to make free software better, so that all projects can benefit, the > important part is to not get effected when commercial softwares have an > edge, and continue to slowly write better, free software. It's apparent from your description that this company (your former employer) created proprietary software. It's nice that they could hire you for improving Glade, this in itself does not mean only proprietary software companies can hire developers to work on free software which they would use in their proprietary software. A lot of free software development work takes place at companies such as Red Hat. It is freedom which makes derivative projects such as CentOS possible. While MySQL and Sleepy Cat (Oracle) are not appropriate examples in this context (as they own copyright and can offer their software under different licenses to proprietary users), you have other examples of free software vendors who make a profit: Mozilla, Wordpress. It's a business issue on how to make money with free software. IMHO, an IDE may be a bad idea of a commercial free software project. But on the other hand, the developers who use such IDEs can themselves extend it when they scratch an itch. Service oriented companies seem to do well with free software, so businesses need to think about adapting. In other words, free software does not limit you from making money, and you can get paid for writing free software. [1] > > I dont feel offended that someone else may write a frontend that > uses libgladeui and makes money on 6 years or so of my own work, > I offer it freely, and don't feel comfortable myself to be denied the > same freedom I would offer a user of the libgladeui library. > You should feel offended according to your earlier argument, if you feel that writing free software is hard work and developers should be paid for it. I completely support you here. Get paid for your time. [1] The GNOME Foundation bounties are a good example of this. I've had someone remember many months after writing code, to send me a cheque for a bounty. With free software, money chases you. :) Mukund ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
I dont see how I can agree that entering in direct competition with anyone who wants to make a dollar from a software solution is going to bring us to that long-term goal. The GNU Project has a history of competing successfully with proprietary software. For instance, GCC competed directly with non-free C compilers, and has done quite well against them. And the GNU operating system as a whole has done pretty well against Unix. Any free IDE almost surely competes directly with non-free IDEs, but that is no reason to give up developing them, and I am confident our community will not. Frankly, the company I formerly worked for, chose gtk+ for its C object orented model, and it was possible because of the LGPL licence. I decided to use the LGPL for the basic GNOME libraries, and thus permit non-free programs to support GNOME, so that GNOME could compete better against KDE. Competing with KDE was crucial for our freedom in 1997 because KDE depends on a library, Qt, which was non-free back then. Whether to allow use of Glade in non-free software is a separate question. Would allowing non-free programs to use Glade give a major advance to the free software community? I won't say that is impossible, but no one has made a case that it is likely. What you said in your message is somewhat vague and doesn't make a clear argument. I dont feel offended that someone else may write a frontend that uses libgladeui and makes money on 6 years or so of my own work, While you may be most concerned with who makes how much money, I'm more concerned with advancing our freedom. Free software is a matter of freedom. Non-free software denies the users' freedom. To restore this freedom we need to replace the proprietary software with free software. That's the reason why we developed GNU, and GNOME in particular. See gnu.org/philosophy. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
HI, On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Basically, the glade core is intended to serve as a library to >edit glade files, making the glade core available under LGPL >in my understanding will allow people to use that library in a >commercial IDE, > > It would do that, and that seems like a good reason not to change the > license. Currently Glade gives an advantage to free IDEs: only they > can use it. We want free IDEs to replace proprietary IDEs, and Glade will > make this easier. > > Would it really benefit our community to negate that advantage? I > don't think so. > I am fully with Richard here. LGPLing libgladeui is essentially LGPLing 'the glade application'. Being a library doesn't change that fact, because it's mostly a means for free IDEs to integrate glade application, like Anjuta does. I am against going anything less than GPL for free software 'application'. My reasons being exactly what Richard pointed out -- it allows extending your applications with proprietory solutions (with plugins for example) making the application 'as a whole' not free software anymore. This has complicated results later. You won't be able to influence/see/change the non-free portions of your application and could mean significant resistance in controlling the direction of your application. Your 'free software' could merely become an instrument to replace itself with proprietory solution. This isn't the case if your library was a 'library' in true sense, which provides smaller/lower building blocks to higher level applications (e.g. widgets). In that case, I tend to agree LGPL couldn't harm since your definition of 'the whole project' still stays within the scope of your library. But libgladeui is not this case. > >I love seeing it in Anjuta, I would love to see it all over the place :) > > Wouldn't it be even better for free IDEs with Glade to replace the > proprietary IDEs? > Again I can't agree more. As Anjuta developer, I might feel biased/selfish here, but I think it's far more important to have it working well with free IDEs than it promoting proprietory IDEs. Right now glade+Anjuta integration isn't anywhere close to what I want. This stance will get worse if suddenly all the glade integration attention goes away to a proprietory IDE (if it was another free IDE, then nobody loses). You need to think of general 'eco system' as well, not just glade. That said, as the person who initiated glade/libgladeui separating for use in Anjuta, I would be disappointed if it goes LGPL. Tristan, I hope you think of use as well :) Thanks. Regards, -Naba ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > As free software developers we naturally feel good to see our own > programs in wider use. But what is really important is for free > software to replace proprietary software. We can achieve more for > freedom if we focus on the deeper and more important long-term goal. > Hi, I dont see how I can agree that entering in direct competition with anyone who wants to make a dollar from a software solution is going to bring us to that long-term goal. Frankly, the company I formerly worked for, chose gtk+ for its C object orented model, and it was possible because of the LGPL licence. I would never had been paid to originally work on Glade for the few months that Glade was my job assignment, I maybe would never have heard of Glade, since then I can count the number of substantialy large contributions on one hand, and half of those are from vendors, or contractors working for vendors. Writing software is hard work, people rightfully want to get paid for it, I hope that free software is the best software, and continue to believe that we need to do it together, leverage people who are paid for their work to make free software better, so that all projects can benefit, the important part is to not get effected when commercial softwares have an edge, and continue to slowly write better, free software. I dont feel offended that someone else may write a frontend that uses libgladeui and makes money on 6 years or so of my own work, I offer it freely, and don't feel comfortable myself to be denied the same freedom I would offer a user of the libgladeui library. Respectfully, -Tristan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 16:03 -0400, Gregory Leblanc wrote: > Licensing Glade under the LGPL means that we > might, at some point down the road, have an IDE that doesn't suck, > which we can use for hacking Gnome. While I'm sure you don't agree, I > would rather have some IDE, regardless of license, than to have no > IDE, under a Free Software license. No yet another BitKeeper-like situation. We have seen what it does. BTW, there are already 6 IDEs that are Free Software: Anjuta, KDevelop, CodeBlock, Eclipse, MonoDevelop and Emacs[1]. So why wasting time to allow a 7th one that could be non-free instead of making sure the existing one rock even more. I'm very skeptical about the whole process of relicensing Glade to allow non-Free derivative of it. Hub [1] I possibly miss some more. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Basically, the glade core is intended to serve as a library to >edit glade files, making the glade core available under LGPL >in my understanding will allow people to use that library in a >commercial IDE, > > It would do that, and that seems like a good reason not to change the > license. Currently Glade gives an advantage to free IDEs: only they > can use it. We want free IDEs to replace proprietary IDEs, and Glade will > make this easier. > > Would it really benefit our community to negate that advantage? I > don't think so. > [snip] >I love seeing it in Anjuta, I would love to see it all over the place :) > > Wouldn't it be even better for free IDEs with Glade to replace the > proprietary IDEs? > > As free software developers we naturally feel good to see our own > programs in wider use. But what is really important is for free > software to replace proprietary software. We can achieve more for > freedom if we focus on the deeper and more important long-term goal. I'm afraid that I cannot agree with your conclusions here. This theory works well when we have created some new and innovative feature such as, to use one of the examples from fsf.org, readline. However, there are a great many IDEs on the market. From what I have seen, the free software "competitors" to these are completely and totally unable to compete on any basis. Licensing Glade under the LGPL means that we might, at some point down the road, have an IDE that doesn't suck, which we can use for hacking Gnome. While I'm sure you don't agree, I would rather have some IDE, regardless of license, than to have no IDE, under a Free Software license. Greg P.S. Please don't reply to me directly, I can read the list just fine. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
Basically, the glade core is intended to serve as a library to edit glade files, making the glade core available under LGPL in my understanding will allow people to use that library in a commercial IDE, It would do that, and that seems like a good reason not to change the license. Currently Glade gives an advantage to free IDEs: only they can use it. We want free IDEs to replace proprietary IDEs, and Glade will make this easier. Would it really benefit our community to negate that advantage? I don't think so. while modifying the core and redistributing it means that their modifications must also be distributed; Yes and no. The LGPL is not a strong copyleft. If they change the files they get from you, the LGPL will require them to release their changed versions of those files. But this will not stop proprietary extensions to Glade. They could change your code by adding calls to subroutines located in their own new files, and not release the source for those files. This too would be a step backward. I love seeing it in Anjuta, I would love to see it all over the place :) Wouldn't it be even better for free IDEs with Glade to replace the proprietary IDEs? As free software developers we naturally feel good to see our own programs in wider use. But what is really important is for free software to replace proprietary software. We can achieve more for freedom if we focus on the deeper and more important long-term goal. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why do you want to relicense Glade under the GNU Lesser GPL? > The current license, the GNU GPL, seems more appropriate since > it prevents the release of non-free extensions of Glade. Hi, Basically, the glade core is intended to serve as a library to edit glade files, making the glade core available under LGPL in my understanding will allow people to use that library in a commercial IDE, while modifying the core and redistributing it means that their modifications must also be distributed; I'm comfortable with that, and I also wouldn't mind if the project received a little more attention (since the current license bars the glade core from use in any commercial IDE), I love seeing it in Anjuta, I would love to see it all over the place :) In a utopic situation, glade being available in bleeding edge IDEs could even help draw attention to Gtk+ and GNOME. It also wasnt exactly clearly stated that glade isn't just a static application but mainly a core library with plugins. Btw Im something of a fan of your work and admittedly a little flattered to receive your mail Richard :D Cheers, -Tristan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
Why do you want to relicense Glade under the GNU Lesser GPL? The current license, the GNU GPL, seems more appropriate since it prevents the release of non-free extensions of Glade. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > You need to: > 1. Make a list of each author of Glade > 2. Contact each of them, requesting permission to relicence Glade > 3a. When all of them have sent you a written note (email is OK) then you > can go ahead. > 3b. If you can't get to 100%, you'll need to remove/rewrite all code by > authors you can't contact or who refuse permission. Ok thats pretty clear, I spoke with Paulo Borelli on irc who went through relicencing gtksourceview and they tracked it in bugzilla (for 3a, which I guess is the tricky part, to keep it well documented). So I'm thinking to go with a bugzilla report if thats valid... actually I'd do it now but I have to go to bed :) Thanks for the replies they were helpful, I'll be sure to ask if I need help with more details :) Cheers, -Tristan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 3b. If you can't get to 100%, you'll need to remove/rewrite all code by > authors you can't contact or who refuse permission. It would also be worth asking the lawyers who worked on Mozilla's change of licence. For authors who refuse permission, the above advice is clearly correct, but for cases where the author can't be contacted after very reasonable attempts, the situation might be more flexible. -- Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 477 36 44 19, http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ Support free software, join FSFE's Fellowship: http://fsfe.org Recent blog entries: http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/fsfe_s_antitrust_victory_with_samba http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/openstreetmap_considers_new_licence http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/why_european_software_patents_are_legally_invalid http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/eu_states_to_discuss_internet_filtering ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?
Hi Tristan, Tristan Van Berkom wrote: > We've been talking about relicensing Glade 3 under LGPL for > a few years now (other primary contributors and myself), and I'm > about to try and bite the bullet and take the plunge. > > I have a vague idea about what things must be done and steps that must be > taken for this to happen, i.e. contacting all the authors of remaining code > portions in glade and having their consent, and documenting it all to > a certain degree... You need to: 1. Make a list of each author of Glade 2. Contact each of them, requesting permission to relicence Glade 3a. When all of them have sent you a written note (email is OK) then you can go ahead. 3b. If you can't get to 100%, you'll need to remove/rewrite all code by authors you can't contact or who refuse permission. > I was hoping that the foundation could help with this, even if only > a lawyer, student of law, or just an experienced guy with this kind > of thing, could help enlighten me on what steps need to be taken, > in what order, etc. I would really apriciate the help and guidance. Evolution is going through the relicencing process now - perhaps someone on the Evo team can share experiences with you? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
