RE: [xine-devel] licencing problems/question

[Downing, T. <Tho...@ip...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heiko Schaefer [mailto:hsc...@ft...]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 8:14 AM
> To: Downing, Thomas
> Cc: xin...@li...
> Subject: RE: [xine-devel] licencing problems/question
> 
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> > If the xine team holds that the GPL means that linking to a .so also
> > requires that the linking image be GPL, then I think that is shuting
> > the door on the acceptance of open software in general, and xine
> > in particular.
> 
> what the heck is 'open software' ?! :-)
> i have heard of free software and open source.

okay, okay, so pick nits... :-)
 
> xine is free software, as described extensively on www.gnu.org.
> 
> many people have argued that free software has no chance of 
> being accepted
> (by the general public, or by companies, or by anyone who is 
> not a bearded
> guru from the 60ies) over the course of (almost) the last two decades.
> 
> if you agree with those people that is your choice. i would 
> claim that the
> facts of todays software world make these arguments more than 
> pointless.

I would be the last person to argue that free software has no
chance of being accepted.  That wasn't my point at all.
Apache. QED.

My point is:
1. There is the set of software that is completely free.
2. There is the set of software that is completely for-cost.
3. There is the set of software that is for-cost but uses software
that is free.

The GNU GPL excludes 2 and 3.  The LGPL includes 3.  That third
set is rapidly growing, is increasing acceptance of free software
in general, and will be a very large segment in the future.  If
you don't want to, (or don't care about) that third segment, then
the GPL is the license for you.
 
> > [...] I had planned on releasing my code under the
> > LGPL. I am willing to release under GPL, but not under the most
> > restrictive reading of it.
> 
> very hopefully there is not enough ambiguity in the GPL so 
> that it allows
> for different 'readings'. and frankly, i don't quite see what 
> your problem
> with the GPL is. what is the difference between LGPL and GPL for your
> purposes ? the LGPL only addresses linking other (proprietary) code
> against your (potentially) LGPL'd code.

I don't have a problem with the GPL. It's not to my taste, but I
don't have a problem with it.  See my earlier answer on this topic. 

[snip]
 
> personally (and i guess i'm not alone there) i find 
> proprietary protocols
> and procedures and formats very disturbing, and hope that they will
> eventually go away. there's nothing wrong with making money, 
> but shutting
> out people cannot be the right way to do that, or can it ?

I completely agree.  Again, it is not a question of GPL or proprietary,
there is a spectrum of choice.

> > I would rephrase that question: what are your beliefs vis-a-vis free
> > software?  That all software should be free? That it is up 
> to the developer
> > /owner?  That the use of free software should not be 
> allowed in conjuction
> > with for-cost software?  Or something really repulsive like 
> it's all an
> > anarchist plot of asocial freaks and only meant for piracy?
> 
> i really recommend you read up on the meaning of 'free software' on
> gnu.org before discussing it.

I think my sense of humor may have missed you :-).  The first belief
represents one extreme, the last the other.  Personally I can live
with people who release their software under the first, but despise
those, (M$, the entertainment industry, and their shill, the government)
who espose the latter.

And BTW I've been developing in the free software world for years.
Further at every place I've worked, I have been a champion for its use,
its support, and the adoption of its lessons as far as they can be
applied to for-profit software development.

> if you want to write software that is free, but can also be 
> reused as part
> of proprietary software then you might want to use a 
> bsd-style licence.

I am aware of that.  But I would like to use xine on our proprietary
platform, along with code that I have written (plugins).  The crux
is one version of those plugins will be free software, another version
will contain added code which will take advantage of certain proprietary
extensions to TS that my employer paid for.  That extra code cannot be
used by my employer, as it would violate the GPL.  It would not
violate the LGPL.  As my employer would be paying for the development,
then the development will not proceed.
 
> > [...] would not be there if the LGPL/Open Software/Apache 
> style licenses
> > were not in use.  If not for this sort of for profit venture, it is
> > unlikely that linux, apache, KDE, GNOME, whatever would ever gain a
> > following outside of a very limited group.
> 
> bla :)
> 
> the linux kernel is licenced under the GPL. gnome is licenced 
> under the
> GPL. maybe you should first learn about the facts and then 
> make your point
> after that. or if you already know the facts then try not to mix up
> everything in your argument.

The kernel is licensed under the GPL, but the GPL contains a specific
exemption for kernels, compilers etc.  At any rate, ad hominem is out
of place.

> the GPL doesn't stop you from making money, it just stops 
> third parties
> from taking advantage of your code in an unfair way.
 
> (i find it reasonable to believe that the only parties that 
> really suffer
> any disadvantages because of this property of the GPL are unfair huge
> corporations)

Not true at all.  My current employer is hardly huge, quite the contrary,
nor is it unfair as far as I have seen.

> however, you are absolutely right insofar as the goal of free 
> software is
> mainly to be _free_ - not to be used by as many people as possible. of
> course it's very nice if people like free software and choose 
> to use it -
> wether they choose it for ethical or for practical reasons. 
> but the point
> is not to make everyone happy (guess why microsoft is ranting and
> spreading fud about the gpl and free software in general).
> 
> in a nutshell: free software is about freedom, not world domination.
> 
> 
> whichever way - xine is licenced under the gpl, and it is 
> most unlikely
> that the license of the entire source in xine cvs will ever 
> be changed.
> maybe that of parts, but not the whole thing. of course you 
> gotta do what
> you gotta do ... but think about it: the gpl is (mostly :>) 
> your friend.
> 
> Heiko

I really am getting tired of pointing out that the use of the GPL
is absolutely the choice and right of the developer.  I guess I
also need to state the corollary, the use of any other license
is absolutely the choice of the developer.

I am not trying to proseletyze, I was simply asking a question,
and pointing out how it would impact me, as an example.  I think
some of the enhanced capabilities of my plugins would be welcomed
by xine users where appropriate.  My enhancements will not now be
added to xine.

I am no ego-centric fool, however.  I a well aware that if there
is interest in those features, someone else will write them.  Very
possibly better that I could have done myself.

Now before this gets acrimonious, I hope this thread dies.