4 ms·

> "But you'll gain more users" has never been a reason for the FSF to compromise on their principles. Actually, rms recommended a more liberal license for Ogg/

• tedks 14y ago
  The FSF's stance on this has been very clear, to me at least, since I first read the gnu.org essays when I was maybe 15 years old. This is the most relevant section I can quote: > Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Lesser GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Lesser GPL for that library. From https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html Stallman's recommendation of a liberal license for the vorbis libraries seems similar: there are already proprietary standards and proprietary libraries for lossy audio compression, so using a copyleft license won't convince anyone to switch their license. This particular instance with LibreDWG is the polar opposite of that: no other library exists that does what LibreDWG does, so it makes sense to keep LibreDWG on the GPLv3, to entice projects like LibreCAD to use the GPLv3. The sort of entitlement that this request displays is somewhat astonishing -- do the LibreCAD developers really expect the FSF to back down not only on its principles, but also its strategies?