5 ms·

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

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
        That page basically says exactly what I did: There is a work around, they could create an alternate plugin interface specifically for this purpose. However they don't want to because it's "ugly." So after reading that I would say the blame falls completely on the LibreCAD developers. Something perceived as being "ugly" is not a valid reason for the FSF to compromise its political goals. The FSF re-licensing software they own the copyrights to is not an option. They're a political organization and they drafted the GPLv3 for urgent political reasons, for them not to use it would be hypocrisy. As for replacing the copyright system, let's save that discussion for a different thread where it is more relevant.
        synchronise 13y ago
        If you had looked further into the subject, you would know that the LibreCAD developers attitude of 'it's ugly' includes 'it breaks a lot of stuff'. They can't justify the workload of adding a module that would otherwise not exist because of licensing issues. And the FSF is supposed to be a champion of, well, free software, and I find it highly hypocritical of them to leave a project out to dry like this, especially if LibreDWG was released a few years before and released under the GPLv2.

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
        That page basically says exactly what I did: There is a work around, they could create an alternate plugin interface specifically for this purpose. However they don't want to because it's "ugly." So after reading that I would say the blame falls completely on the LibreCAD developers. Something perceived as being "ugly" is not a valid reason for the FSF to compromise its political goals. The FSF re-licensing software they own the copyrights to is not an option. They're a political organization and they drafted the GPLv3 for urgent political reasons, for them not to use it would be hypocrisy. As for replacing the copyright system, let's save that discussion for a different thread where it is more relevant.
        synchronise 13y ago
        If you had looked further into the subject, you would know that the LibreCAD developers attitude of 'it's ugly' includes 'it breaks a lot of stuff'. They can't justify the workload of adding a module that would otherwise not exist because of licensing issues. And the FSF is supposed to be a champion of, well, free software, and I find it highly hypocritical of them to leave a project out to dry like this, especially if LibreDWG was released a few years before and released under the GPLv2.