Re: gEDA-user: GPL-v3 for Open CAD

[Peter TB Brett <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 09:53:55 +0800, Steven Michalske <smichalske@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> To make this point clear to get companies like IBM to support GPL V3
> they had to put in clauses that excepted them from the IP rules.

[citation needed].  This is pure FUD.

> Also see this clause
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Compatibility_and_multi-licensing
> 
> you cant link a GPL v3 library into non GPL v3 work.... this is bull.

But you couldn't link a GPLv2+ library (e.g. libgeda) into a non GPLv2+
work either.

> I am a stonch proponent of open software, but when the licence makes
> inroads to invalidate the authors rights that are not part of the
> software they developed....  It's going tooo far.
>
> I support licenses like BSD, Apachee, Apple open software, GPL V2 and
> MIT, and other permissive licenses.

I'm never, ever coming to you for advice on software licensing.

> If you want to licence something as GPL v3 you need do a dual release
> with a closed license like QT is dual licensed.  Cause frankly no sane
> business with any IP should develop GPL V3 code.

By your definition, Red Hat is either insane or has no IP.

Personally, I quite like the idea of being able to develop a library of
useful code that only Free software can use.  If you want to allow non-Free
code to link against your library, you can use the LGPLv3, which
specifically permits linking.

As far as linking restrictions go, there is no change between the LGPLv2
and LGPLv3, or between the GPLv2 and GPLv3.  The issue has been around for
20 years.

It seems like the anti-GPL FUD is disturbingly strong on this list.

Peter

-- 
Peter Brett <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Remote Sensing Research Group
Surrey Space Centre


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user