14 ms·

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 docum

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.
  - spacelizard 13y ago
    I read the article you linked and nowhere does it say that things will break. I know it's convenient for you to attack the FSF but the real problem is that RibbonSoft is a proprietary company that is more interested in dual licensing and refuses to accept the GPLv3.
    - pbsdp 13y ago
      Do you not see how ridiculous you sound? Working around licensing by building a hackisb fork-based plugin system? We're in this business to write software for people to actually use.
      - spacelizard 13y ago
        Yes, I agree, it is ridiculous. That's what happens when you have to deal with software licensing. The whole point of licenses is to be incompatible, if all licenses were compatible then we would only have one license. I didn't come up with this system, if you must blame something, blame copyright. If you think it's bad this way, it's even worse when the two licenses in question are proprietary; often times in that situation you won't even have the option of a rewrite or a workaround. The nature of copyright is that not even free software licenses can give you the legal ability to do everything you could possibly think of doing, but they give you enough to ensure that every user is granted the four freedoms as long as the copyright holds. The FSF's position is that it would be more meaningful for the community to convince RibbonSoft to re-license as GPLv3 than it would be to have the short term gain of having DWG support available sooner.
        pbsdp 13y ago
        Why shouldn't I blame the GPL? If they'd used a liberal OSS license, the code would be open source, unencumbered, and this problem wouldn't exist. The GPL introduces license incompatibilities; no GPL, no problem.
        spacelizard 13y ago
        A lax permissive license could potentially lead to a whole host of other problems including licensing problems. These licenses are not free from incompatibilities either, see the infamous BSD advertising clause for an example of that. And a permissive license certainly would not guarantee the project stay "unencumbered" either. The most adequate solution to this would be to either work on persuading RibbonSoft to relicense under GPLv3, or to just do a workaround. Attacking the GPL serves no purpose, even if you disputed the choice of license it would make more sense to criticize RibbonSoft than it would to criticize the FSF just for writing the GPL.

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.
- spacelizard 13y ago
  I read the article you linked and nowhere does it say that things will break. I know it's convenient for you to attack the FSF but the real problem is that RibbonSoft is a proprietary company that is more interested in dual licensing and refuses to accept the GPLv3.
  - pbsdp 13y ago
    Do you not see how ridiculous you sound? Working around licensing by building a hackisb fork-based plugin system? We're in this business to write software for people to actually use.
    - spacelizard 13y ago
      Yes, I agree, it is ridiculous. That's what happens when you have to deal with software licensing. The whole point of licenses is to be incompatible, if all licenses were compatible then we would only have one license. I didn't come up with this system, if you must blame something, blame copyright. If you think it's bad this way, it's even worse when the two licenses in question are proprietary; often times in that situation you won't even have the option of a rewrite or a workaround. The nature of copyright is that not even free software licenses can give you the legal ability to do everything you could possibly think of doing, but they give you enough to ensure that every user is granted the four freedoms as long as the copyright holds. The FSF's position is that it would be more meaningful for the community to convince RibbonSoft to re-license as GPLv3 than it would be to have the short term gain of having DWG support available sooner.
      - pbsdp 13y ago
        Why shouldn't I blame the GPL? If they'd used a liberal OSS license, the code would be open source, unencumbered, and this problem wouldn't exist. The GPL introduces license incompatibilities; no GPL, no problem.
        spacelizard 13y ago
        A lax permissive license could potentially lead to a whole host of other problems including licensing problems. These licenses are not free from incompatibilities either, see the infamous BSD advertising clause for an example of that. And a permissive license certainly would not guarantee the project stay "unencumbered" either. The most adequate solution to this would be to either work on persuading RibbonSoft to relicense under GPLv3, or to just do a workaround. Attacking the GPL serves no purpose, even if you disputed the choice of license it would make more sense to criticize RibbonSoft than it would to criticize the FSF just for writing the GPL.