[cumbria_lug] Why GNOME is LESS free than KDE, and WORSE for the OSS community

[Adam Pigg]

See
http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/license_gpl.html

Why is Qt Open Source Edition not distributed under the GNU Lesser General 
Public License (LGPL)? 

 The LGPL is designed to "permit developers of non-free programs to use free 
libraries" (quote from the LGPL). In other words, if Qt Open Source Edition 
were LGPL'd, companies would not have to purchase our commercial editions in 
order to make commercial/proprietary software, they could just use the Open 
Source Edition, free of charge. That would mean Trolltech would not get the 
revenue necessary for improving and extending Qt. Note also that the Free 
Software Foundation discourages the use of the LGPL. 

And
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is the 
GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of license 
makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use of the library in 
proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available 
only for free programs.


 Which license is best for a given library is a matter of strategy, and it 
depends on the details of the situation. At present, most GNU libraries are 
covered by the Library GPL, and that means we are using only one of these two 
strategies, neglecting the other. So we are now seeking more libraries to 
release under the ordinary GPL.


 Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software 
developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the ordinary GPL for 
a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary 
developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot 
use it.


 Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are 
reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases. The 
most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for 
proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the 
library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better 
to use the Library GPL for that library.


 This is why we used the Library GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there 
are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven 
proprietary software developers to use another--no problem for them, only for 
us.


 However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like GNU 
Readline, that's a horse of a different color. The Readline library 
implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a 
facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and 
limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least 
one application program is free software today specifically because that was 
necessary for using Readline.


 If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no 
parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of 
useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free programs. This will be 
a significant advantage for further free software development, and some 
projects will decide to make software free in order to use these libraries. 
University projects can easily be influenced; nowadays, as companies begin to 
consider making software free, even some commercial projects can be 
influenced in this way.


 Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an 
important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries 
to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, 
promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in 
proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a 
library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of 
that one library is what the community needs above all.


 But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much 
more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one 
another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we 
can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary 
alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, 
because free software as a whole will stack up better against the 
competition.


 Since the name "Library GPL" conveys the wrong idea about this question, we 
are planning to change the name to "Lesser GPL." Actually implementing the 
name change may take some time, but you don't have to wait--you can release 
GPL-covered libraries now.
-- 
web   : www.piggz.co.uk
email : adam at piggz.co.uk
msn   : adam at piggz.fsnet.co.uk
jabber: piggz at jabber.earth.li
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/cumbria/attachments/20041113/5c2add1f/attachment.bin