[Kde-pim] License change.

Sun Jun 24 16:20:17 BST 2007

Rudolf Germer wrote:
> Tobias Koenig wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 01:39:22PM +0200, Daniel Molkentin wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
> 
>> Richard Stallman made a good separation:
> 
> In my opinion Richard Stallman has some very sick opinions.
> Sad to see GNU is undermining more and more free software
> projects.
> 
>> If your library brings new value which makes GPL software better
>> than propritary software then use GPL, so people will be forced to
>> use free software
> 
> Why should it be necessary to separate from fellow software developers?
> Just because they want money for _their own_ code? They don't (!) steal
> anything. The free library stays free. They just get paid for their _own_
> code, with some help from free software.
> 
>> if they want to profite from this feature.
> 
> Fellow programmers should not profit from free software? There are
> millions of users who profit from free software. Even thousands of
> small and large companies do. So fellow programmers should not profit
> from it just because they _produce_ software? If someone wants release
> a piece of software under a free license, he will do it. There's no need
> to force anybody doing this.

I _actually_ have nothing much to add here, and I only vaguely use the 
KDE-PIM stuff, BUT I just gotta say that I so wholeheartedly agree with 
the above poster.

You may read the next mail now if you don't care for more of my opinions!

I really respect Stallman for his GNU and GPL. However, I totally 
disagree with his notion that the L is "Lesser", and that all software 
_have to be free_.
   Code is a mix between manufacture, crafts and art - and people work 
in all those professions making money. Some get more money for their 
work than others. I just can't see why it should be impossible to make a 
living out of making a very nice program, and if you're good and lucky, 
make a bit more than a living.

But of course, that's just me.

However, I think that by making libraries GPL'ed, you simply assure that 
very few will use it outside of the application where it originated. And 
you assure that you won't get contributions to your code either.

I've come to realize that I believe GPL is only usable for whole 
applications and then again obviously just for those applications where 
the developers are of the "Stallman Idealist" kind, feeling that no-one 
should "rip off" their work, and that the particular application should 
always "stay free" and all that shit.
   I personally don't even agree wholly with making applications GPLed, 
but it at least this makes some sense.
   What I actually feel GPL is perfect for, is _infrastructure_ projects 
like Linux, GNU tools and possibly other major components of that kind 
where the feeling is that no-one really can (nor should) make much money 
from that component (anymore) - it should just be a common good, and a 
good common good! Everyone should contribute into the same pool of code 
- making it possible to make cool stuff on top of it, commercial and 
open source.

For libraries, GPL is utterly meaningless. I've come to view GPLing 
libraries as an evil "try before you buy" mechanism used by many 
commercial enterprises. I really _despise_ MySQL for what they did with 
their database: once it was established as the de facto open source GPL 
database, BUT with LGPL client libraries, they suddenly change the 
libraries to be GPL (and incidentally also changing the wire protocol 
with that same version) - literally forcing all vendors that had 
depended on their LGPL-ness of the client to buy "commercial licenses". 
Or use hundreds of hours to get their system over to postgres or 
similar. Don't even try and tell me that they had any "purist" reasons 
for this _whatsoever_ - the move came alongside the "MySQL AB" stuff - 
"going public, going for the money". That was pure evil scheming from a 
formerly open source idea.
   They effectively use GPL as a "try before you buy" vehicle, in the 
nastiest way possible.

There are also plenty of other startups and whatnots pushing 
"library-like" stuff, that's trying to ride the open source bandwagon 
propaganda - but they typically use the tactic of "yeah, use it free 
with GPL, or contact us for commercial licenses".

I'm currently trying to make an application that I hope the world will 
like. I'm aiming to make money out of it. I roam around the internet 
searching for libraries and code to use for the various parts - there's 
so _fantastically_ much goodness out here when you start to dig.

What I do when I come to a new site with some promising named software, 
is to _instantly_ start looking for the "Licensing" tab or link or 
whatnot. Sometimes it is hard to find. VERY often these particular sites 
use the GPL - and I assure you that they aren't purist in any way - they 
always also have this "for commercial licenses, contact us at ..". I've 
even often have had to google any info about the license. Sometimes you 
even really have to hunt, in the end finding the products licensing 
terms mentioned on some other site - and at that point it pretty much 
invariably is GPL done the "try before you buy" way.
   Sites that actually have some _open source_ stuff to come with, being 
"idalist" GPL'ers or "pragmatist" BSD'ers, Apache'ers and LGPL'ers, they 
feature their "Licensing" tab _proudly_, not hiding it away.

So - if you really are aiming for your library to be _useful_ for other 
than the actual application where it originated, then LGPL or more open 
licensing terms like BSD/Apache are really the only option.

With LGPL, you get the GPL for libraries: it will stay open source, you 
will ensure that additions and other betterings will pretty much have to 
be contributed back, and commercial developers can use it to make money 
of. As they can with Linux.

It boils down to this: You can't force people into open sourcing their 
application due to some damn _library_. I'll just have to code it 
myself, then - or find another piece of code that CAN help me.

I won't just NEVER EVER use a GPL library in my code. Ever.

And you know what? You won't EVER get any feedback from me either, nor 
patches, nor ideas, bugreports - nothing. So there you go. You sit there 
aiming for a better "ideal" world trying to force people to GPL their 
entire codebase buy making one little piece of their problem marginally 
easier - and pretty much no-one will use it outside the application's 
scope, your library will rot (as far as being a library), and you might 
as well just statically stick it directly into your application's 
codebase instead, not calling it a library in the first place.

Thanks,
Kind regards,
Endre.
_______________________________________________
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/