2013/8/13 Ryan Bramantya <ryanbram@gmail.com>
2013/8/13 Kevin Krammer <krammer@kde.org>
Better is dependent on context on the what goals one wants to achieve, etc.
Richard Stallman's goal is always to protect the four freedoms he identified
as important decades ago.
In your example taking away the excuse of licensing on code dealing with an
open format helps the user's freedom (no data lock-in) more than ensuring all
of the products using the format respect the freedoms as well.
It is a trade-off, a compromise.

All of our discussion basically to choose the prefer license on context what goals LXDE want to achieve. And I recommend LGPL for this purpose. 
 
We as IT professionals see a greater picture, we know that it is being used in
tons of devices that normal people do not even consider to be computer
equipment, etc.

But LXDE is not a toaster or microwave software. It was a community targeted to provide applications for desktop computer or PC. This is why a collaboration between free software developer community become important and LGPL become solution to narrow the distance between communities that might have different philosophy.
  
Sure, I don't have any issue with that.
I just don't see what difference it would make, application code is not
something anyone will link against, any modification is equally affected by
LGPL or GPL license terms.

Really? The difference are LGPL can become GPL, but not vice versa. LGPL can dynamically linked with BSD, Apache, MPL, and other libraries, but GPL will infecting others license, and in some case they even incompatible. 
Truly, there are many end user software who are licensed under non-GPL license whatever reason they believed was, such as : Apache OpenOffice, Calligra Suite, Firefox, QtCreator, and many other software. So what's the point for free software foundation to change the term GNU LGPL  from "GNU Library GPL" to "GNU Lesser GPL" if LGPL only suitable for library and not make any difference for applications.
 
KDE software is known to run on proprietary platforms such as Mac OSX or
Microsoft Windows, WebKit is known to be part of Mac OSX, Apple iOS, and
BlackBerry10.
 
Run is a different matter from "become part of". Copyleft software will not become a part of full proprietary systems. As for WebKit at least it doesn't under copyleft license which make releasing a full proprietary applications possible. And in the worst case, GPL applications couldn't appear in Mac AppStore because licensing issues.


2013/8/13 Kevin Krammer <krammer@kde.org>
Foruntately most infectious code is never released under GPL, actually I have
never heard of any virus being released under GPL.
Those are mostly closed source.
 
I think Hong Jen Yee talked about infectious license, not infectious code. 
 
> We may gain more users and possibly more developers who like a more
> permissive license, but we lose much potentially reusable code at the
> same time.

I don't think this would be a huge loss, it would only apply to code with
authors who don't want their code to be reused.

I think the BSD and Apache community who avoid GPL is the most altruist free software communities which very sincerely release their code for the public without needed every change in the code to should be given back to base code. And the main reason I start this discussion is not for the sake of proprietary software, but for every free software communities whatever philosophies they believe was.

2013/8/13 PCMan <pcman.tw@gmail.com>
In conclusion, I support the idea of:
1. libs use LGPL or MIT
2. apps can use GPL or LGPL.
3. develop new apps with LGPL if possible, and do not relicense
existing GPL'd apps.
4. linking GPL and LGPL'd components is easy. Just use dbus. Calling a
GPL'd program from a non-GPL one via dbus is perfectly legal and do
not involve lib linking at all. It's safe for system services to be in
GPL as long as it can be called via IPC.
 
Hi, Hong Jen Yee.
I am not a developer. I am just a user that want to share his opinion and hope it will become a good idea for LXDE-Qt communities. No matter how strong my argument was, but the persons who have the rights to decide is you and many other LXDE-Qt contributors. Personally I am very satisfied with your decision which means that our discussion is ended here.

The reason for me to convince LXDE-Qt to remain neutral is because I tired to see so many fragmentation in free software communities. Instead of making a better and usable applications, every communities make too many similar software that sometiems caused just by the difference between license and goal that they believe. PySide vs PyQt, OpenOffice vs LibreOffice, Clang vs GCC is some example of them. Even KDE vs GNOME which  become the founders of so many applications which eventually starting from K*** letter or G*** letter are caused by licensing issue from Qt at the time GNOME was developed. Sometimes some people said it was the matter of choice, but I believe it was just wasting a time. With so many choice of free GNU/Linux OS distributions and free software applications, common users still choose to purchasing Windows and OS X, Photoshop and CorelDraw, instead of using LinuxMint and PC-BSD, or OpenOffice and LibreOffice. It means that end user doesn't really care what license that application use. They only care with application that suitable with they needs and ease of use from their perspective.

I am very sick to hear if some license categorized as free software, but not compatible with GPL. How could a license called a free software license in one side, but cannot be used with another free software license in another side (it seems only GPL and AGPL which make the problem) . Does it means GPL restricting other free software licenses? Even in the preamble of  GPL prior GNU GPL 3 version, it was said "To protect your rights, we need to make RESTRICTIONS". Oh, come on...?

LGPL as the preferred license in LXDE-Qt seems become a compromise solution to narrow the gap between Copyright, Copyleft, and Copycenter believers. With LGPL, I hope LXDE-Qt applications and library can be reused as many as possible for creating the best free software thus increasing collaboration between communities. And the advantages of LXDE-Qt over any other current desktop environments is the developers keep modularization between libraries and avoid interdependencies therefore their can be used outside LXDE environment without the needed with too many dependencies.

FreeBSD, OpenOffice, CalligraSuite, QtCreator, Thunderbird, Chromium and many other non-GPL applications prove to us if choosing non-GPL for applications is very sensible and will not kill their further development just because they scare if every change with their code will not given back to their code base and become proprietary.

See also :

Thanks to:
And for every one who read and keep this discussion conducive and friendly.




Linux Torvlads said
"I use the best tool for the job, even if that includes proprietary software."

Clement Lefebvre (Linux Mint Founder) also said:
"Freedom should be granted to the developer to decide whether he wants to distribute his source code or not. I don't see why he wouldn't (unless he's not familiar with open source and maybe scared of not generating profit... I don't know) but the thing is, this is his choice. Similarly it's your choice and your freedom to use his software or not. Having some political movement telling you to restrict your own choice and boycotting good and helpful software just because you didn't get the source code with it is simply going against your own freedom."

-- 
Best regards,
Ryan Bram



--
Best regards,
Ryan Bram