5 ms·
It's been well known for a long time that the FSF is only interested in advancing their own idea of "free software." At this time it's the GPLv3 flavor of free
by jlarocco 14y ago
It's been well known for a long time that the FSF is only interested in advancing their own idea of "free software." At this time it's the GPLv3 flavor of free software.
For people who don't agree with the FSF's idea of "free software" or don't want the politics that goes along with the GPL and FSF, there's always the BSD license. Though it really wouldn't help in this case, since the library in question belongs to the FSF.
- benatkin 14y agoThe need for open source tools that interact with dwg resonates strongly with me. I hope they can rewrite it, and I hope they choose BSD (or MIT) rather than GPLv2.
- gknoy 14y agoExactly: The solution seems to be (unfortunately) to let LibreDWG languish, and write a new library which is GPL2, or some other license. Sounds painful, since the people who want to use it are those who until now have not been (I assume) the ones writing the library.
- cube13 14y agoTo be fair, it looks like the FSF is letting LibreDWG languish anyway. There hasn't been a master commit in 2 years, and the last activity in the repository was in February 2012. I'd assume that a "high priority" project would have a lot more activity than that, especially because there hasn't been a binary release yet( http://www.gnu.org/software/libredwg/ http://www.gnu.org/software/libredwg/ ).
- tedks 14y agoThe FSF hasn't had developers for GNU projects on staff in decades, if I remember correctly. They aren't letting it languish, they're actively trying to give it exposure and find new hackers for it -- that's the point of it being a high priority project as far as I can tell.
- tjaerv 14y agoAnd for those fed up with copyright as a whole: http://unlicense.org http://unlicense.org