5 ms·

Those projects aren't doomed to non-collaboration because that is a non-issue. Worst case scenario you'll have to modify one of those projects so they can invok

Those projects aren't doomed to non-collaboration because that is a non-issue. Worst case scenario you'll have to modify one of those projects so they can invoke the other one as an external program. Free software license incompatibility is blown way out of proportion.

synchronise 13y ago
This is a real life example of a scenario currently playing out between LibreCAD (GPLv2 only) and LibreDWG (GPLv3) because the former was based on the source code released from a company who has no intention of changing it and the latter is the FSF, who see anything but the latest and greatest GPL version for their own projects as undermining free software. So you have a situation where you have a program and a library that would really benefit each other, yet are unable to combine that code and distribute it.
- spacelizard 13y ago
  Yes and there are workarounds for it. If they aren't willing to do a workaround and neither of them are willing to compromise on their position (LibreCAD should probably switch to GPLv3, btw), then it's both of their faults. >the FSF, who see anything but the latest and greatest GPL version as undermining free software This is false. The FSF has no problem with people using licenses that aren't the GPLv3. It's suggested that you use the GPLv3, but any license that meets the criteria for being free software is an acceptable free software license.
  - synchronise 13y ago
    LibreCAD can't switch because their project depends on a large amount of GPLv2 only code. The FSF won't change its position because LibreDWG is a FSF project. Catch 22, who's right?
    - spacelizard 13y ago
      You can blame the copyright system for that for making it not possible to negotiate license changes in the event the original copyright holder is not contactable for whatever reason. But again, there are workarounds and it makes no sense for them not to consider them, so this whole thing is a non-issue anyway. If they want to save DWG files, is there any reason they cannot invoke LibreDWG from a separate command line program using an intermediate format?
      - synchronise 13y ago
        It's not the copyright system's fault in this regard. The originator of the LibreCAD code has no interest in hiring another legal team to go through the process of re-licensing an already open source project, and the FSF sees anything less than *GPLv3 in its own projects undermining the end user's freedom. So I ask again, who's right?
        spacelizard 13y ago
        The copyright system is to blame because without it there would be no need for them to even think about hiring a lawyer because these complex licensing issues wouldn't even exist. I would advise against looking to blame someone, as the system is not known for working in the first place. But if you really want to blame someone, you can blame both of them. They're both wrong, because there are workarounds.
        synchronise 13y ago
        So your solution is to abolish the current copyright system? How would you fix it? What would you do different to the current one? And this topic is well documented and there currently is only one viable workaround, the FSF licensing LibreDWG under a GPLv2 compatible license. They have blatantly refused however, as explained here. http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-controversy-2-months-later http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-controvers...
        spacelizard 13y ago

synchronise 13y ago

This is a real life example of a scenario currently playing out between LibreCAD (GPLv2 only) and LibreDWG (GPLv3) because the former was based on the source code released from a company who has no intention of changing it and the latter is the FSF, who see anything but the latest and greatest GPL version for their own projects as undermining free software. So you have a situation where you have a program and a library that would really benefit each other, yet are unable to combine that code and distribute it.

spacelizard 13y ago
Yes and there are workarounds for it. If they aren't willing to do a workaround and neither of them are willing to compromise on their position (LibreCAD should probably switch to GPLv3, btw), then it's both of their faults. >the FSF, who see anything but the latest and greatest GPL version as undermining free software This is false. The FSF has no problem with people using licenses that aren't the GPLv3. It's suggested that you use the GPLv3, but any license that meets the criteria for being free software is an acceptable free software license.
- synchronise 13y ago
  LibreCAD can't switch because their project depends on a large amount of GPLv2 only code. The FSF won't change its position because LibreDWG is a FSF project. Catch 22, who's right?
  - spacelizard 13y ago
    You can blame the copyright system for that for making it not possible to negotiate license changes in the event the original copyright holder is not contactable for whatever reason. But again, there are workarounds and it makes no sense for them not to consider them, so this whole thing is a non-issue anyway. If they want to save DWG files, is there any reason they cannot invoke LibreDWG from a separate command line program using an intermediate format?
    - synchronise 13y ago
      It's not the copyright system's fault in this regard. The originator of the LibreCAD code has no interest in hiring another legal team to go through the process of re-licensing an already open source project, and the FSF sees anything less than *GPLv3 in its own projects undermining the end user's freedom. So I ask again, who's right?
      - spacelizard 13y ago
        The copyright system is to blame because without it there would be no need for them to even think about hiring a lawyer because these complex licensing issues wouldn't even exist. I would advise against looking to blame someone, as the system is not known for working in the first place. But if you really want to blame someone, you can blame both of them. They're both wrong, because there are workarounds.
        synchronise 13y ago
        So your solution is to abolish the current copyright system? How would you fix it? What would you do different to the current one? And this topic is well documented and there currently is only one viable workaround, the FSF licensing LibreDWG under a GPLv2 compatible license. They have blatantly refused however, as explained here. http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-controversy-2-months-later http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-controvers...
        spacelizard 13y ago