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.
It is not possible to have a licence which has all the freedoms in a consistent way. It's a trade-off and they're quite open about that. See, for example, http://www.fsf.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html and others under http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/philosophy.html#LicensingFreeSoftware
I think I prefer losing the ability to link against restricted software to losing the ability to use the software. What about you?
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. 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.
I think you miss the point again, anyway. The complaint is not with any particular "central control" but with proprietary software being "out of the user's control". It is the terms of the software licence which are really important, not the licence of the licence. Even there, FSF is better than many, with author choices and strict controls over how changes to that licence are applied, while you don't get that with some others.