172 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
172 lines
10 KiB
Markdown
|
# Re: FSF Wastes Away Another "High Priority" Project
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
A couple days ago, my attention was drawn to an article on Phoronix that
|
||
|
|
[criticized the FSF for its decision to stick with GPLv3 over GPLv2 on
|
||
|
|
LibreDWG][0] due to the number of projects that make use of it---licensed under
|
||
|
|
the GPLv2---under [a now incompatible][1] license. This article is very negative
|
||
|
|
and essentially boils down to this point (the last paragraph):
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
> Unless the Free Software Foundation becomes more accomodating [sic] of these
|
||
|
|
> open-source developers -- who should all share a common goal of wanting to
|
||
|
|
> expand free/open-source software -- LibreDWG is likely another project that
|
||
|
|
> will ultimately waste away and go without seeing any major adoption due to
|
||
|
|
> not working with the GPLv2.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
It it worth mentioning why this view is misguided (though understandable for
|
||
|
|
those who adopt the ["open source" philosophy over that of software
|
||
|
|
freedom][2]).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
[0]: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI4Mjc
|
||
|
|
[1]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
|
||
|
|
[2]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<!-- more -->
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Let me start with [this paragraph from the Phoronix article][0]:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
> The Free Software Foundation was contacted about making LibreDWG GPLv2+
|
||
|
|
> instead (since the FSF is the copyright holder), but the FSF/Richard Stallman
|
||
|
|
> doesn't the DWG library on the earlier version of their own open-source
|
||
|
|
> license.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The FSF's founding principle is that of [software freedom][3] (beginning with the
|
||
|
|
GNU project). Now, consider the reason for the creation of the GPLv3---the GPLv2
|
||
|
|
[could not sufficiently protect against][4] software patents and newer threats such
|
||
|
|
as "tivoization". These goals further the FSF's mission of ensuring---in
|
||
|
|
this case---that free software *remains* free ([a concept that RMS coined
|
||
|
|
"copyleft"][5]). It would make sense, then, that the FSF (and RMS') position is
|
||
|
|
that [it is important that we adopt the GPLv3 for our software][6].
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
From this perspective, it does not make sense to "downgrade" LibreDWG's
|
||
|
|
license to the GPLv2, which contains various bugs that have since been patched
|
||
|
|
in GPLv3---it is not pursuant to the FSF's goals. (Of course, not all agree with
|
||
|
|
the GPLv3; one such notable disagreement (as well as issues
|
||
|
|
stemming from copyright assignment) leaves the kernel Linux [perpetually licensed
|
||
|
|
under the GPLv2][7] since it does not contain the ["or later" clause][8]).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
That is not to say that the author's concern is not legitimate---a number of
|
||
|
|
projects are licensed under the GPLv2 and therefore cannot use the newer (and
|
||
|
|
improved) versions of LibreDWG that are licensed under the GPLv3 (unless they
|
||
|
|
were to upgrade to the GPLv3, of course). Whether or not upgrading is feasible
|
||
|
|
(e.g., in the case of the kernel Linux, it is not) is irrelevant---let us
|
||
|
|
instead focus on the issue of adoption under the assumption that the project is
|
||
|
|
either unwilling or unable to make use of a library licensed under the GPLv3.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
As aforementioned, [the author focuses on the issue of adoption][0]:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
> LibreDWG is likely [...to] go without seeing any major adoption due to not
|
||
|
|
> working with the GPLv2
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
A focus on adoption is a [focus of "open source", not free software][2], the
|
||
|
|
latter of which the FSF represents. With a focus on software freedom, the goal
|
||
|
|
is to create software that respects the [users' four essential freedoms][9]; if
|
||
|
|
the software is adopted and used, great! However, freedom should never be
|
||
|
|
sacrificed in order to encourage adoption. One may argue that "downgrading" to
|
||
|
|
the GPLv2 is not sacrificing freedom because the software is still free (it is
|
||
|
|
even the GPL)---but it is important to again realize that the GPLv3 is "more
|
||
|
|
free" than the GPLv2 in the sense that it [*protects* additional freedoms][6];
|
||
|
|
so, while the GPLv2 isn't necessarily sacrificing users' freedoms directly, it
|
||
|
|
does have such an indirect effect through means of enforcement.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
A reader familiar with GNU may then point out the LGPL---the Lesser General
|
||
|
|
Public License---under which popular (and very important) [libraries such as
|
||
|
|
glibc are licensed][10]. In fact, one could extend this argument to any
|
||
|
|
library---why not have LibreDWG licensed under the LGPL to avoid this problem in
|
||
|
|
its entirety, while still preserving the users' freedoms for that library in
|
||
|
|
itself? This understanding requires a brief lesson in history---the rationale
|
||
|
|
under which the LGPL was born. [To quote the GNU project][11]:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
> Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are
|
||
|
|
> reasons that can make it better to use the Lesser 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 Lesser GPL for that library.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
It was for this reason that glibc was released under the LGPL---because it was
|
||
|
|
better to have the users adopt some sort of free software than none at all;
|
||
|
|
there were other alternatives that existed that users may flock to if they were
|
||
|
|
forced to liberate their own proprietary software (after all, the C API is also
|
||
|
|
standardized, so such a feat would be trivial). Now that glibc has since matured
|
||
|
|
greatly, it could be argued today that it has proved its usefulness and the LGPL
|
||
|
|
may no longer be necessary, but such a discussion is not necessarily relevant
|
||
|
|
for this conversation.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
What is important is that [the FSF does not recommend the LGPL for most
|
||
|
|
libraries][11] because that would encourage proprietary software developers to
|
||
|
|
take advantage of both the hard work of the free software community and the
|
||
|
|
users of the software. Now, I cannot speak toward the alternatives to
|
||
|
|
LibreDWG---do there exist proprietary alternatives that are reasonable
|
||
|
|
alternatives to non-commercial projects? I do not have experience with the
|
||
|
|
library. However, I hope by this point the FSF's position has been rationalize
|
||
|
|
(even if you---the reader---do not agree with it).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Of course, this rationalization will still leave a sour taste in the mouth of
|
||
|
|
those "open source" developers (or perhaps even some free software developers)
|
||
|
|
that think in terms of what is "lost": these projects---which are themselves
|
||
|
|
free software and therefore beneficial to our community---cannot take advantage
|
||
|
|
of *other free software* due to this licensing issue. Since these projects had
|
||
|
|
already existed when LibreDWG was licensed under the GPLv2, the relicensing to
|
||
|
|
GPLv3 may seem unfair and, therefore, a "loss". It is difficult to counter
|
||
|
|
such an argument if the above rationale has not been sufficient; nor will I
|
||
|
|
argue that the situation is not unfortunate, should the projects be unable to
|
||
|
|
relicense. However, it must be understood that, to ensure the future of free
|
||
|
|
software, the FSF must adopt to combat today's threats and so too must other
|
||
|
|
free software projects.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The Phoronix article mentioned two projects in particular that suffer from
|
||
|
|
LibreDWG's relicensing: [LibreCAD and FreeCAD][0]. LibreCAD omits the "or later"
|
||
|
|
clause that was mentioned above, preventing them from easily migrating to the
|
||
|
|
GPLv2 (which is [against the FSF's recommendation][12]). Unless the project
|
||
|
|
requires that contributors assign copyright to the project owner, then they
|
||
|
|
would have to get permission from each contributor (or rewrite the code) in
|
||
|
|
order to change the license (which is not unheard of; [VLC had done so recently
|
||
|
|
to migrate from the GPL to the LGPL][13]); this is a significant barrier for any
|
||
|
|
project with multiple contributors, especially when your project is a derivative
|
||
|
|
work (of QCad).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The other project mention was FreeCAD, and the author of the article mentions
|
||
|
|
that the project depends on Coin3D and Open CASCADE, "both of which are
|
||
|
|
GPLv2", so [the project cannot migrate to GPLv3][0]. A quick look at Coin3D's
|
||
|
|
website shows that the software is actually licensed under the modified
|
||
|
|
(3-clause) BSD license, and so [migrating to the GPLv3 is not an issue][15]. Open
|
||
|
|
CASCADE has its own "public license" that I do not have the time to evaluate
|
||
|
|
(nor am I lawyer, so I do not wish to give such advice), so I cannot speak to
|
||
|
|
its compatibility with the GPLv3. That said, I'm unsure if it would be a barrier
|
||
|
|
toward FreeCAD's adoption of the GPLv3.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Ultimately, the moral of the story is to plan for the *future*---if you use a
|
||
|
|
project licensed under the GPL, ensure that it has the "or later" clause that
|
||
|
|
allows it to be licensed under later version of the GPL, since you can be sure
|
||
|
|
that the FSF and many other free software developers will be quick to adopt the
|
||
|
|
license. Of course, many may not be comfortable with such a licensing decision:
|
||
|
|
you effectively are giving the FSF permission to relicense you work by simply
|
||
|
|
releasing a new version of the GPL. It is your decision whether you are willing
|
||
|
|
to place this kind of trust in the organization responsible for starting the
|
||
|
|
free software movement in the first place.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Readers may now assume that I am placing the entire blame and onus on the
|
||
|
|
implementors of LibreDWG. The onus, perhaps, but not the blame---this truly is
|
||
|
|
an unfortunate circumstance that takes away from hacking a free software
|
||
|
|
project. Unfortunately, the projects are stuck in a bad place, but the FSF is
|
||
|
|
not to blame for standing firm in their ideals. Instead, this can be thought of
|
||
|
|
as a maintenance issue---rather than a source code refactoring resulting from a
|
||
|
|
library API change, we instead require a "legal code" refactoring resulting
|
||
|
|
from a "legal API" change.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
[3]: http://www.fsf.org/about/
|
||
|
|
[4]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
|
||
|
|
[5]: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/
|
||
|
|
[6]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
|
||
|
|
[7]: http://lwn.net/Articles/200422/
|
||
|
|
[8]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility
|
||
|
|
[9]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
|
||
|
|
[10]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html
|
||
|
|
[11]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
|
||
|
|
[12]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
|
||
|
|
[13]: http://mikegerwitz.com/thoughts/2012/11/VLC-s-Move-to-LGPL.html
|
||
|
|
[14]: https://bitbucket.org/Coin3D/coin/wiki/Home
|
||
|
|
[15]: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD
|
||
|
|
[16]: http://www.opencascade.org/getocc/license/
|
||
|
|
|