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 ?
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 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 ?
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: [...] 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
