5 ms·

Let us not act as if the LGPL be the only free software licence that exists. Even among free software advocates there are problems and they might favor another

Let us not act as if the LGPL be the only free software licence that exists. Even among free software advocates there are problems and they might favor another free software licence, even another copyleft licence, and that can't be done in this case. There is a reason that many large projects in fact craft their own licence rather than relying upon another template, as they do not meet their needs.

josephcsible 6y ago
Aren't GPL-incompatible licenses generally considered poor choices even if they're FOSS, since they lead to the ZFS-on-Linux problem? (And trying to sidestep the issue with permissive licenses just leads to proprietary forks.)
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  That is a general issue with strong copyleft licences and not a GPL specific one. Strong copyleft licences are generally not compatible with each other; GPLv2 is not even compatible with ̀GPLv3.
- yakubin 6y ago
  GPL is what leads to the ZFS-on-Linux problem. The clause, that prohibits ZFS from being combined with GPL, is in GPL.
  - saurik 6y ago
    I mean, that's a nice story, but causality doesn't work like that... this is like a bully claiming someone "ran into their fist" :/. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ > We believe Sun was aware when drafting CDDLv1 of the incompatibilities; in fact, our research into its history indicates the GPLv2-incompatibility was Sun's design choice. At the time, Sun's apparent goal was to draw developers away from GNU and Linux development into Solaris. Not only did Sun not want code from GNU and Linux in Solaris, more importantly, Sun did not want technological advantages from Solaris' kernel to appear in Linux. Given Sun's goal, no matter what GPL said, I am sure that they would have figured out a cute way to engineer their license to be incompatible.
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      Perhaps it was, but it is very difficult to create a strong copyleft licence that is not the GPL that is compatible with the GPL, and that goes for any strong copyleft licence in every direction, so much so that GPLv2 is not compatible with GPLv3. It's rare to find two strong copyleft licences that are compatible with each other — advocates of strong copyleft typically phrase their arguments as if there only be one strong copyleft licence in existence, as this is the major problem that is hard for them to overcome that is seldom sung.
    - yakubin 6y ago
      "Bully"? As if people were supposed to specifically review licenses they create, whether they're compatible with every GPL clause. Nobody needs to care about GPL, it doesn't deserve special treatment. Other licenses not compatible with GPL: - Apache License (only version 2 is compatible and only with version 3 of GPL); - GPL (v2 vs v3), as other comments already mentioned. Are the authors of those licenses bullies? No. Nobody needs to care about your favourite flavour of copyleft.
      - samus 6y ago
        Well, if they want their code to be included in GPL software, for example the Linux kernel, then they have to care. If they don't care, then not :)
- TylerE 6y ago
  No. World+Dog has generally switched to Apache or BSD licenses for most things. Which are, for most any dimension anyone cares about, more free than *GPL.
  - josephcsible 6y ago
    You're mixing up freedom and power. It's impossible to have a license more free than the GPL. The extra thing that permissive licenses give you isn't more freedom, but rather the power to withhold freedom from others. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html for more details.
    - TylerE 6y ago
      No I’m not. There are things that I, as Joe Developer downloading some software can do with BSD licensed code that I can do that I can’t with copylefted code. I am...more free to do with it as I wish. No amount of GNU/Bloviating will make that not true.
      - josephcsible 6y ago
        What sorts of things in particular?
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      GPLv2 does not permit code be incorporated into a GPLv3 licensed project. GPLv3 does not permit code be incorporated into a GPLvv licensed project. The M.I.T. licence, for instance, permits both. This is something the F.S.F. always fails to address in these talks; they speak proudly how the GPL guarantees that code never end up in properietary software, which is true, but only because that is a special case of code not ending up in essentially any project with only a slightly difference licence, including proprietary software. the GPL guarantees that the code be off limits to proprietary software, permissive free software, other copyleft than the GPL, and even other versions of the GPL, and this is something they bury, and continually fail to address.

josephcsible 6y ago

Aren't GPL-incompatible licenses generally considered poor choices even if they're FOSS, since they lead to the ZFS-on-Linux problem? (And trying to sidestep the issue with permissive licenses just leads to proprietary forks.)

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
That is a general issue with strong copyleft licences and not a GPL specific one. Strong copyleft licences are generally not compatible with each other; GPLv2 is not even compatible with ̀GPLv3.
yakubin 6y ago
GPL is what leads to the ZFS-on-Linux problem. The clause, that prohibits ZFS from being combined with GPL, is in GPL.
- saurik 6y ago
  I mean, that's a nice story, but causality doesn't work like that... this is like a bully claiming someone "ran into their fist" :/. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/ > We believe Sun was aware when drafting CDDLv1 of the incompatibilities; in fact, our research into its history indicates the GPLv2-incompatibility was Sun's design choice. At the time, Sun's apparent goal was to draw developers away from GNU and Linux development into Solaris. Not only did Sun not want code from GNU and Linux in Solaris, more importantly, Sun did not want technological advantages from Solaris' kernel to appear in Linux. Given Sun's goal, no matter what GPL said, I am sure that they would have figured out a cute way to engineer their license to be incompatible.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    Perhaps it was, but it is very difficult to create a strong copyleft licence that is not the GPL that is compatible with the GPL, and that goes for any strong copyleft licence in every direction, so much so that GPLv2 is not compatible with GPLv3. It's rare to find two strong copyleft licences that are compatible with each other — advocates of strong copyleft typically phrase their arguments as if there only be one strong copyleft licence in existence, as this is the major problem that is hard for them to overcome that is seldom sung.
  - yakubin 6y ago
    "Bully"? As if people were supposed to specifically review licenses they create, whether they're compatible with every GPL clause. Nobody needs to care about GPL, it doesn't deserve special treatment. Other licenses not compatible with GPL: - Apache License (only version 2 is compatible and only with version 3 of GPL); - GPL (v2 vs v3), as other comments already mentioned. Are the authors of those licenses bullies? No. Nobody needs to care about your favourite flavour of copyleft.
    - samus 6y ago
      Well, if they want their code to be included in GPL software, for example the Linux kernel, then they have to care. If they don't care, then not :)
TylerE 6y ago
No. World+Dog has generally switched to Apache or BSD licenses for most things. Which are, for most any dimension anyone cares about, more free than *GPL.
- josephcsible 6y ago
  You're mixing up freedom and power. It's impossible to have a license more free than the GPL. The extra thing that permissive licenses give you isn't more freedom, but rather the power to withhold freedom from others. See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html for more details.
  - TylerE 6y ago
    No I’m not. There are things that I, as Joe Developer downloading some software can do with BSD licensed code that I can do that I can’t with copylefted code. I am...more free to do with it as I wish. No amount of GNU/Bloviating will make that not true.
    - josephcsible 6y ago
      What sorts of things in particular?
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    GPLv2 does not permit code be incorporated into a GPLv3 licensed project. GPLv3 does not permit code be incorporated into a GPLvv licensed project. The M.I.T. licence, for instance, permits both. This is something the F.S.F. always fails to address in these talks; they speak proudly how the GPL guarantees that code never end up in properietary software, which is true, but only because that is a special case of code not ending up in essentially any project with only a slightly difference licence, including proprietary software. the GPL guarantees that the code be off limits to proprietary software, permissive free software, other copyleft than the GPL, and even other versions of the GPL, and this is something they bury, and continually fail to address.