| |||||||||||||
The license is strictly the author's businessThe license is strictly the author's businessPosted Feb 20, 2012 21:28 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544)In reply to: The license is strictly the author's business by felixfix Parent article: VLC 2.0 released
I didn't say that I know what the authors want.
I said this is probably bad for free software users.
You're right that the author can do what he likes with his code, but some choices are unfortunate for free software users. I care about free software users, thus my comment.
(Log in to post comments)
The license is strictly the author's business Posted Feb 20, 2012 23:13 UTC (Mon) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
It's true that the change to LGPL will enable proprietary frontends to be developed. But it will also enable GPLv3 or BSD-licensed frontends to be developed, something that was formerly impossible because of the GPLv2-only license.
Overall, this will reduce the amount of wheel reinvention and fragmentation, so I can't help but think of it as a positive step.
It was already compatible with GPLv3 and BSD licences Posted Feb 21, 2012 11:32 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
It's was previously GPLv2+, so it was already compatible with GPLv3 and BSD.
It was already compatible with GPLv3 and BSD licences Posted Feb 21, 2012 15:52 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
"Compatible with BSD" is a stretch. "Requiring BSD projects to release their software under the GPL" would be a more accurate way of putting that.
It was already compatible with GPLv3 and BSD licences Posted Feb 21, 2012 16:42 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
Anyone can combine BSD and GPL code (v2 or v3), and distribute the result. That's compatible.
The GPL parts say GPL, and the BSD parts stay BSD. Distributors have to comply with both sets of requirements.
10 more paragraphs could be added about the details, but the licences are 100% compatible.
(This will probably be my last post in this thread. I should get back to working on http://en.swpat.org )
It was already compatible with GPLv3 and BSD licences Posted Feb 21, 2012 20:26 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
And anyone who wants to build on top of the combination must use the GPL. Your careful language implies that it's a reciprocal relationship. It's not.
It was already compatible with GPLv3 and BSD licences Posted Feb 22, 2012 12:44 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
I don't think anything was implied about reciprocity. If you're building on a work, you have to go along with the conditions applied to that work. People sometimes make a big deal about how "generous" they are ("I attached as few conditions to my work as possible!"), but that simply isn't the aim of the GPL.
Technically, anyone who wants to build on top of the combination can use whichever GPL-compatible licence they like and wait for someone else to replace the GPL-licensed part under a licence they prefer. Usage of the GPL merely invites people to undertake a common activity within a framework that seeks to uphold specific properties of the resulting work.
There are all sorts of reasons why a project might switch to using more or less permissive licences - they may indicate a change in the way the interests of different groups of people are prioritised by the developers - but given the potential effects of such changes on end-users, I don't see anything wrong in voicing end-user concerns about it.
|
|||||||||||||