on Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:53:19AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
xs@kittenz.org xs@kittenz.org wrote:
GPL =~ copyleft, so GPL software isn't free (freedom) software because, as the above implies, linking with proprietary code is not allowed.
Now you're trying what is known as "Yet Another Definition Of Free Software". When the FSF and GNU talk about Free Software, it is quite clear what they mean. They are referring to the freedoms to use, study, modify and redistribute the software. Linking the software against proprietary code would remove some or all of those freedoms from later users, so the freedom to do that has to be given up in order to preserve the other ones.
Assuming there are any later users, and assuming those later users don't have access to that same proprietary code.
If I want to link a program with a closed source, patent-ridden, maggot-eaten library, isn't that up to me? After all, I don't have to distribute that linked program, nor the source modifications, if there are any.
I think I prefer losing the ability to link against restricted software to losing the ability to use the software. What about you?
Linking against restricted software doesn't cause the loss of the ability to use the software. See Motif/Lesstif. There's more than one way to do the same thing.
And then they complain about central control, when fsf centrally controls the license on your software and can change it at any point, at the end-user's option, of course, which may possibly be to their advantage..
Nothing requires a developer to use the "or any later version" clause in their declaration, but many do.
And GNU doesn't explicitly say you can leave it out. Many people writing software for free, can't afford lawyers.
The reason for that is so that if a loophole is discovered in the current one, FSF can "upgrade" the licences of all software using the clause in one move, with no work required from the author. Worst case scenario: you don't like the upgrade, you relicense.
Yes, but you're assuming that the fsf will only improve and update the gpl to fix loopholes, and that those updates are correct. In the worst case scenario, once the upgrade is out, you've already lost if your source code or program used by anyone but you.
(For a license to be gpl compatible, doesn't it have to be >= the freedom given by the gpl? anyhow.)