4 ms·

Why the fuck would a library not use the LibraryGPL? It's the same stupidity as readline.

by lucian1900 14y ago

cygx 14y ago
It's GNU policy - see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html
- viraptor 14y ago
  The irony here is really hard to miss: "By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives."
  - cygx 14y ago
    You have to get into the GNU mindset here: If you consider non-free software immoral and your ultimate goal is to outlaw it, providing libraries which can be used by proprietary software makes you guilty of aiding and abetting.
dllthomas 14y ago
LGPL as "Library GPL" is deprecated - the v3.0 version is called the "Lesser GPL". It's intended to be appropriate for some libraries, but was never intended to be used for all. See the link in my neighbor comment for more details.
- lucian1900 14y ago
  The renaming was entirely political. If the author wants their library to actually be used, it should be LGPL. GPL-ing a library almost always makes it pointless.
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    > The renaming was entirely political. Well sure; the FSF is essentially a political organization. I'm not sure what point you're making here. The renaming was a statement that the organization believes the license is not always what is most appropriate for libraries. This is entirely relevant to the original point, which was a refutation of the notion that the FSF is dumb for not using the clearly-appropriate-because-they-named-it-that "Library GPL". > If the author wants their library to actually be used, it should be LGPL. If the author wants their code to be used as broadly as possible, it should be public domain. If the author, maybe, has some concerns other than just how broadly the code is used, then some more restrictive license may be appropriate - BSD, LGPL, or GPL, depending on your particular goals. > GPL-ing a library almost always makes it pointless. If your only goal is broad adoption, then this is certainly the case. Somehow, I think the FSF has goals other than broad adoption of their software. Even so, it is certainly the case that releasing your library under the GPL will mean that many projects will avoid it. Whether this trade-off is worthwhile depends not only on the weight you place on various goals, but also on the nature of the library: something that adds huge amounts of value relative to alternatives, and relative to proprietary libraries that might serve as other parts of a final application, will be a lot more likely to change the license of prospective projects than something that is easily replaced or displaces other things of more value. This is actually more-or-less the FSF's position, per my understanding, on libraries: "we encourage GPL but do what makes sense." This was their reasoning on readline, and that definitely drove some GPLing of software before workalike alternatives surfaced. This was presumably their reasoning here. This is not to say that the reasoning is necessarily correct.
_delirium 14y ago
Readline being GPL was actually a pretty good idea imo– it's gotten some pieces of software to open-source themselves solely because they wanted to use readline (the clisp implementation of Lisp is the most famous example). Seems like a reasonable quid pro quo: you want to use my nice open-source library, then you need to open-source also.
- dragonwriter 14y ago
  <blockquote>Readline being GPL was actually a pretty good idea imo– it's gotten some pieces of software to open-source themselves solely because they wanted to use readline</blockquote> That's pretty much the entire value proposition of the GPL, and it was pretty important in the early days of F/OSS when the value propositions of F/OSS was less clear -- "you have to open your stuff if you want to use my stuff". But very early on in F/OSS, the argument was made that F/OSS was actually good for the people releasing their software as F/OSS -- not just good for the downstream recipients. And to the extent that that value proposition has been accepted, GPL-style licensing is less beneficial. If you believe that F/OSS is good for the licensor as well as the licensee, there is no reason, as a licensor, to use the license on your software as a bribe to get other people to open their software. While initially -- before lots of big players clearly saw the value of F/OSS and adopted it for things they released even outside of GPL-style license-based compulsion -- the GPL was useful both for those who believed in the value proposition of F/OSS and those who were ideologically attached to F/OSS independent of the value proposition, its now useful mostly to the latter group and a negative to the former.
- lucian1900 14y ago
  But recently, GPL libraries have mostly only inconvenienced other open source projects, like Racket not shipping readline. That tactic is dead.

Why the fuck would a library not use the LibraryGPL? It's the same stupidity as readline.

cygx 14y ago

It's GNU policy - see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html

viraptor 14y ago
The irony here is really hard to miss: "By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives."
- cygx 14y ago
  You have to get into the GNU mindset here: If you consider non-free software immoral and your ultimate goal is to outlaw it, providing libraries which can be used by proprietary software makes you guilty of aiding and abetting.

dllthomas 14y ago

LGPL as "Library GPL" is deprecated - the v3.0 version is called the "Lesser GPL". It's intended to be appropriate for some libraries, but was never intended to be used for all. See the link in my neighbor comment for more details.

lucian1900 14y ago
The renaming was entirely political. If the author wants their library to actually be used, it should be LGPL. GPL-ing a library almost always makes it pointless.
- dllthomas 14y ago
  > The renaming was entirely political. Well sure; the FSF is essentially a political organization. I'm not sure what point you're making here. The renaming was a statement that the organization believes the license is not always what is most appropriate for libraries. This is entirely relevant to the original point, which was a refutation of the notion that the FSF is dumb for not using the clearly-appropriate-because-they-named-it-that "Library GPL". > If the author wants their library to actually be used, it should be LGPL. If the author wants their code to be used as broadly as possible, it should be public domain. If the author, maybe, has some concerns other than just how broadly the code is used, then some more restrictive license may be appropriate - BSD, LGPL, or GPL, depending on your particular goals. > GPL-ing a library almost always makes it pointless. If your only goal is broad adoption, then this is certainly the case. Somehow, I think the FSF has goals other than broad adoption of their software. Even so, it is certainly the case that releasing your library under the GPL will mean that many projects will avoid it. Whether this trade-off is worthwhile depends not only on the weight you place on various goals, but also on the nature of the library: something that adds huge amounts of value relative to alternatives, and relative to proprietary libraries that might serve as other parts of a final application, will be a lot more likely to change the license of prospective projects than something that is easily replaced or displaces other things of more value. This is actually more-or-less the FSF's position, per my understanding, on libraries: "we encourage GPL but do what makes sense." This was their reasoning on readline, and that definitely drove some GPLing of software before workalike alternatives surfaced. This was presumably their reasoning here. This is not to say that the reasoning is necessarily correct.

_delirium 14y ago

Readline being GPL was actually a pretty good idea imo– it's gotten some pieces of software to open-source themselves solely because they wanted to use readline (the clisp implementation of Lisp is the most famous example). Seems like a reasonable quid pro quo: you want to use my nice open-source library, then you need to open-source also.

dragonwriter 14y ago
<blockquote>Readline being GPL was actually a pretty good idea imo– it's gotten some pieces of software to open-source themselves solely because they wanted to use readline</blockquote> That's pretty much the entire value proposition of the GPL, and it was pretty important in the early days of F/OSS when the value propositions of F/OSS was less clear -- "you have to open your stuff if you want to use my stuff". But very early on in F/OSS, the argument was made that F/OSS was actually good for the people releasing their software as F/OSS -- not just good for the downstream recipients. And to the extent that that value proposition has been accepted, GPL-style licensing is less beneficial. If you believe that F/OSS is good for the licensor as well as the licensee, there is no reason, as a licensor, to use the license on your software as a bribe to get other people to open their software. While initially -- before lots of big players clearly saw the value of F/OSS and adopted it for things they released even outside of GPL-style license-based compulsion -- the GPL was useful both for those who believed in the value proposition of F/OSS and those who were ideologically attached to F/OSS independent of the value proposition, its now useful mostly to the latter group and a negative to the former.
lucian1900 14y ago
But recently, GPL libraries have mostly only inconvenienced other open source projects, like Racket not shipping readline. That tactic is dead.