3 ms·

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 intr

by 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.
- pbsdp 13y ago
  The BSD advertising clause has been dead for years, and it was primarily incompatible with ... the GPL. The GPL is incompatible with licenses that impose more restrictions than it does, even if those restrictions are fairly limited, like the advertising clause. I can't say I've ever heard of license incompatibility stupidity outside of the GPL. Lots of GPL problems, though: OpenSSL, dtrace, ZFS. Apple actually dropped GCC and invested in producing the liberally licensed clang BECAUSE of the GPLv3.
  - spacelizard 13y ago
    It's a bit strange that you blame then GPL when it is just as much the authors of the incompatible licenses' fault, especially when in some cases it's completely their fault because the authors of those licenses deliberately wrote them with the intent of being incompatible with the GPL. Additionally I find it strange that you fault the values of the GPLv3 for Apple ditching gcc, rather than faulting Apple for being an abusive proprietary company that has problems with the values that the GPLv3 imposes. As if the FSF should be working to please Apple?
    - pbsdp 13y ago
      Everyone else gets along; GPL is the outlier.
      - spacelizard 13y ago
        No, if you'll re-read my post you'll see how I described that even if you view this issue in a vacuum, the other parties are still at fault as well. Apple especially does not want you to "get along," and especially not if you're releasing something on their app store. Now please stop this blind hatred and FUD spreading, it's not constructive.
        pbsdp 13y ago
        Apple implemented a full AOT/JIT/Disassembler (LLVM), debugger (lldb), static code analyzer (clang), C and C compiler (clang), and c++11 stdlib, all under a free MIT-like OSS license. There all built as libraries, can be linked against to build IDEs, JITs, etc etc etc. So how is it that they don't get along, exactly?
        spacelizard 13y ago
        That instance is fine. It certainly is nice that they released it under a free software license, it would have been better if they used copyleft, but there is nothing wrong with the license they chose. They part where they don't want you to "get along" is the part where they distribute proprietary software, sell devices with proprietary hardware locks, forbid use of the GPL (and other free software licenses) on their app store, etc. See this blog entry for an example of how this has specifically applied in one case to some FSF-copyrighted GNU software: https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance
        pbsdp 13y ago
        Why would it be better if LLVM and clang were copyleft? Then it couldn't be used in other products as a library, and the entire industry would be set back to where we were with GCC in the first place -- unable to fully leverage our tools to push the state of the art forward.

by pbsdp 13y ago

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.

pbsdp 13y ago
The BSD advertising clause has been dead for years, and it was primarily incompatible with ... the GPL. The GPL is incompatible with licenses that impose more restrictions than it does, even if those restrictions are fairly limited, like the advertising clause. I can't say I've ever heard of license incompatibility stupidity outside of the GPL. Lots of GPL problems, though: OpenSSL, dtrace, ZFS. Apple actually dropped GCC and invested in producing the liberally licensed clang BECAUSE of the GPLv3.
- spacelizard 13y ago
  It's a bit strange that you blame then GPL when it is just as much the authors of the incompatible licenses' fault, especially when in some cases it's completely their fault because the authors of those licenses deliberately wrote them with the intent of being incompatible with the GPL. Additionally I find it strange that you fault the values of the GPLv3 for Apple ditching gcc, rather than faulting Apple for being an abusive proprietary company that has problems with the values that the GPLv3 imposes. As if the FSF should be working to please Apple?
  - pbsdp 13y ago
    Everyone else gets along; GPL is the outlier.
    - spacelizard 13y ago
      No, if you'll re-read my post you'll see how I described that even if you view this issue in a vacuum, the other parties are still at fault as well. Apple especially does not want you to "get along," and especially not if you're releasing something on their app store. Now please stop this blind hatred and FUD spreading, it's not constructive.
      - pbsdp 13y ago
        Apple implemented a full AOT/JIT/Disassembler (LLVM), debugger (lldb), static code analyzer (clang), C and C compiler (clang), and c++11 stdlib, all under a free MIT-like OSS license. There all built as libraries, can be linked against to build IDEs, JITs, etc etc etc. So how is it that they don't get along, exactly?
        spacelizard 13y ago
        That instance is fine. It certainly is nice that they released it under a free software license, it would have been better if they used copyleft, but there is nothing wrong with the license they chose. They part where they don't want you to "get along" is the part where they distribute proprietary software, sell devices with proprietary hardware locks, forbid use of the GPL (and other free software licenses) on their app store, etc. See this blog entry for an example of how this has specifically applied in one case to some FSF-copyrighted GNU software: https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance
        pbsdp 13y ago
        Why would it be better if LLVM and clang were copyleft? Then it couldn't be used in other products as a library, and the entire industry would be set back to where we were with GCC in the first place -- unable to fully leverage our tools to push the state of the art forward.