[Kde-pim] Respect the GPL! (was Re: License change.)

[Rudolf Germer]

Christian Weilbach wrote:

> Dear Tobias Koenig,
>
> > > > What is the deal with relicensing the stuff under LGPL anyway?
> > > > They are libs, and they were always meant to be.
> > >
> > > Right, nevertheless that doesn't mean that they have to be LGPL
> > > licensed at all. Using LGPL just means that propritary software can
> > > link against them
> >
> > So what's wrong about proprietary software being able to link against
> > them?
>
> Because they won't give anything back. You are right, they will get money
> for everything they code and therefore won't even give back a single line
> of code in general.

Right.

Coders get the money for _their_ code. They don't get it for GNU code
because the GNU one is free anyway. So why should they _have to_ give
back code? They do it anyway - if they want! That's what I call freedom.
Millions of users and companies won't give back a single line of code.
Why should programmers be forced to do that?

> Commercial interests are always(!) against the users freedom, because they
> have to make sure you pay them as much as possible.

Coders who want to make a living out of their coding business will
_not_ use GPL licensed libraries, so they will need longer for coding
or buy some stuff, which will lead to higher prices. Or they won't
even code the application.

That's not an advantage for users.

> I don't say that you have
> to dislike that, but it definetly is not free software.

You're right. That's not free software (as Richard Stallman defined it).
But do we really need _this_ free software? I don't think we do.

> As long as companies
> keep their commercial interest in the software support area

I don't talk about software support in general. I also don't talk
about paid support for free software. I specifically talk about
the ability to sell software. Code. Software. Not support!

> If there were a license compatibility mess you could
> not get a consistant system or you have to rewrite everything yourself.

You will get a license compatibility mess if you choose copyleft type
licenses like the GPL. That's the price for what Richard Stallman's
_thinks_ is freedom. Use a, say, BSD license and you'll experience much
less problems: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html
(It might be too late for KDE now, I know that.)

> Have a look at the Minix development back then. And imagine some
> company like Xandros would use KDE code and building a technically
> better Desktop on top of it with a propietary license or Apple doing
> the same with KHTML. Would you like to spend your time and code to
> that?

It's up to the coder to decide this. Why not? Where's the problem?
KDE code will still be there. KDE coders could improve KDE, and they
will! (Btw., the GPL doesn't forbid selling GPL'ed software.)

> You mean profit is money is freedom?

No. Freedom is: Letting the coder decide if he wants to get money for
_his_ piece of code and letting him decide if he wants to give back
code! A bad thing about the GPL is that it tries to force him to make
more GNU software. Freedom? No.

RG
_____________________________________________________________________
Der WEB.DE SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
http://smartsurfer.web.de/?mc=100071&distributionid=000000000066

_______________________________________________
kde-pim mailing list
kde-pim at kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
kde-pim home page at http://pim.kde.org/