2 ms·

I'm not sure what you're asking or saying. The whole mess here certainly isn't a win for free software, but that's only because there doesn't seem to be enough

by majika 12y ago

I'm not sure what you're asking or saying. The whole mess here certainly isn't a win for free software, but that's only because there doesn't seem to be enough developers who care about free software, and want DWG support. I think you're saying that the GPL isn't practical. I just wrote this large reply to a sibling comment on the whole practicality argument: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7886353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7886353

pyre 12y ago
I'm saying this is a situation where a different license might make sense. The Open Source projects that could make use of said library, can't use said library because of GPLv3. No one else wants to use it, and the project is dying on the vine. Maybe it makes sense to change the license so that the projects that could make use of it, are now legally able to. This might encourage developers to come back to the project, and improve the software ecosystem as a whole...
- majika 12y ago
  > I'm saying this is a situation where a different license might make sense. I completely agree. That's why I asked in my original comment why the other library authors don't want to move from GPLv2 to GPLv3+, or why the LibreDWG authors won't switch to a non-copyleft license if they've changed their minds on copyleft.
  - pyre 12y ago
    > LibreDWG authors won't switch My reading of the article says that the copyright belongs to the FSF. It seems unlikely that the FSF will ever change license to anything other than GPLv3+. Some of the other projects seem like forks where the original code copyright belongs to someone else. Unless the original owned changes the license, the devs have their hands tied.