[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gphoto-devel
Subject:    [gphoto-devel] Re: gPhoto2 licensing clarification (was Re: Introduction and Comments)
From:       Richard Stallman <rms () santafe ! edu>
Date:       2000-08-21 22:52:47
[Download RAW message or body]

    well then, let me clarify :) after reading back over this thread, it
    became clear that we weren't being specific enough. The gPhoto that
    Johannes and I have been discussing is actually gPhoto2 which is a
    complete rewrite/redesign and a different focus overall.

The fact that it is a rewrite does not directly affect the merits of
the license decision.  However, the details of the new design do
affect the consequences of using the LGPL for some part of it.

    - the camera libraries handle all the camera I/O. They are dynamically
    loaded at 
      run-time.

This opens the danger of non-free camera drivers, which could be a
perennial problem, like the problem of non-free device drivers in
Linux.  By allowing them we would impose on ourselves a never-ending
effort to obtain free drivers for all cameras, in effect the effort of
persuading each company to allow a free driver.

If Linus had not given permission for non-free device drivers, we (our
community) would have had an easy way to insist on free drivers for
all PC devices: by simply telling the hardware companies that this is
the only way they can legally make the GNU/Linux system support their
hardware.  A few might say they don't care if their hardware is
supported, but most would simply cooperate.

But when he gave permission for non-free device drivers, we gave up
that position of strength.  Companies can release non-free drivers and
tell their customers that GNU/Linux "works" with their hardware.  And
it does "work", if you define "running with non-free software" as
"working".  But the real goal of supporting the hardware *with free
software* becomes harder to reach, because they do not see a need to
cooperate with us.

That decision was a major strategic mistake.  It let the barbarians
enter through the mountain pass which a handful of men could have held
against a horde, and now we must defend each city, year after year.

Anyone can make a mistake once, but we should learn from past mistakes
and not repeat them.

    We have
    discussed inserting a clarification statement in the distribution
    stating that dynamic loading from the *official gPhoto2 core* is not
    considered to be linking.

Dynamic linking with non-free drivers is exactly what we need to
prevent.  Making a statement to permit this is surrendering without a
fight.

This would also be directly contrary the GNU Project's position on the
issue, so we cannot ever approve of a statement to this effect in a
GNU program.  We would be contradicting ourselves that way.  We can
(if there is a very good reason) give explicit permission for linking
with non-free software (and that is what the LGPL does), but we must
clearly reject the position that this is not linking.

    This brings us to the licensing issue. The OS/2 port in particular. Bart
    van Leeuwen ported gPhoto2 to OS/2 (in record time :), but is also
    writing the OS/2 front-end. He is using a non-GPL library for the GUI
    interface though (the native OS/2 GUI libraries) which would make
    linking to gPhoto2 a violation of the GPL.

What happens on OS/2 is a secondary issue for a GNU program.  The main
goal of any GNU program is to improve the GNU system (of which the
most popular variant today is GNU/Linux).  It is fine to support other
systems, including non-free systems such as OS/2, if you want.  But we
should never sacrifice anything important for a tangential goal like
that.  That would be "the tail wagging the dog."

But what he wants to do is probably actually permitted by the GPL.  If
these libraries are distributed with the OS/2 kernel or with the OS/2
compiler, then the GPL actually permits linking with them (because of
the "system library" exception, although "system library" are not the
actual words used in the GPL).

     This is one reason the core will be LGPL'd.

Whether to release it under the LPGL as a GNU package is the question
we are talking about.  It isn't decided yet.

To argue that "So-and-so wants to do something that the GPL would not
permit" is not a cogent reason for changing the license.  If so-and-so
can't combine our software with something non-free, that is his loss,
not the Free World's loss.  (The combination, being non-free, fails to
contribute to our community.)  The mixture of free and non-free
software is exactly what we are trying to *prevent*.

    The other reason is that as we expand to other platforms with gPhoto2,
    we will run into proprietary competition as I previously had mentioned.

This could be a relevant factor in the strategic decision.  It depends
what sort of competition; competition for what?  So could you please
go into more detail about this?


    gPhoto2 is extremely portable so branching out to other platforms will
    happen rapidly. We already have ports to Linux, *BSD, Solaris, and OS/2. 

*BSD, Solaris and OS/2 are complete systems, but Linux is a kernel.  I
think you're talking about the GNU/Linux system, since that is the one
Linux is normally used in.

Would you please call it GNU/Linux in this discussion?  That is one of
the rules of the GNU Project.  People have freedom of speech, so they
don't have a legal obligation to give us credit.  But we should keep
pointing out that we developed this system, even if (especially if)
others fail to say so.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]