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

[Christian Weilbach]

Am Sonntag 24 Juni 2007 schrieb Daniel Molkentin:
> Am Sonntag 24 Juni 2007 schrieb Rudolf Germer:
> > > > > 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.

And that's why I don't care about Windows users. I don't think that competing 
with the Windows Desktop will help us a lot. But the threats of commercial 
market integration are enormous.

> > Why should programmers be forced to do that?

Because it is my code that I contribute and I want it to be used freely. I 
choose the license. I want my time to be useful to people who also share 
their time with the community and don't get their money from my time. GPL is 
about copyleft not copyright. Without that you wouldn't even have ten percent 
the free software we have today.

>
> Ok guys, please wrap up up right here. The reason I was asking was not
> because I wanted more libraries to be LGPL or something, but because we
> (KDE PIM) wanted to avoid a license mix for libraries, which we usually
> have very a simple rule for: libraries must be LGPL (or more liberal).

I know that and that's why I've changed the thread name. I don't have a 
problem with releasing the libraries LGPL (mine, too), but I do have a strong 
problem with the definition of freedom many developers seem to have. I know 
it is easy to sit down and develop all night long, simply because it is a 
world you can rule the way you want, but technology is not some parallel 
universe. You always have to think about what you do and my lifetime is not 
endless. I don't want to spend man years of development for somebody else's 
lifestyle and loose my code right in the end.

And with patents, Novell, Linspire and Xandros on the run and even other 
commercial interests recognizing they can make money with your years of 
quality development, this discussion is enormously important. 
It is not(!) unprobable that I will sit infront of this workstation with 
non-free software in ten years, if we simply don't care what people want our 
work to be used for. That's why I feel this thread is critical and I feel 
some discomfort in spending my time in kdepimlibs development now. 

>
> While it would be a pitty to add a new module or soften the library policy
> for one or two kdepimlibs libs, religious wars have no place in this
> discussion, since a decision about "commerical development: good vs evil"
> has already been made by taking over the the library policy from kdelibs.

I don't doubt that this discussion is not new, as most discussions are really 
old in their roots, but it is very important to be aware of the dangers 
permanantly, especially as we grow more attractive to the market now. We have 
to face more threats, too.

>
> When we decided over that policy, we wanted to allow commercial software.
> Period. The question is now how to deal with libkleo, which is in fact the
> only library in question after Tills clarifying mail. And that is not being
> decided by religious wars, only be the simple question if we really need a
> new module to make it easier for people to recognize the licence nature of
> the code contained.

I don't question the decision. I just want to emphasize that it is important 
to understand what freedom means. Freedom has absolutely nothing to do with 
religion and therefore you may not call it religious wars. This would imply 
freedom is an irrational concept. It's simply about keeping the general 
intention behind coding a bit consistant. And KDE is a free software desktop 
project, isn't it? 
This thread is relevant as long as developers doubt the GPL defined freedom.

By the way you can read all that on http://www.gnu.org . Indeed it is nothing 
new, but some developers don't even read the free software definition, do 
they? If you don't agree with the GPL definition, you should simply not 
develop for KDE or any other GPL'd software. Let the coder choose and so 
choose the license which fits your ideology.

>
> Cheers,
>  Daniel

Cheers,
Christian

P.S.: You know that Richard Stallman and the FSF made free software possible 
since more than 30 years, Rudolf? I don't think you will develop for free 
software in more than 30 years, if this is your opinion.
_______________________________________________
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/