VLC and GPL and LC on iOS (was: Re: MergEXT now included with Indy/Business IDE)
Kay C Lan
lan.kc.macmail at gmail.com
Sat May 7 07:59:37 CEST 2016
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Richard Gaskin
<ambassador at fourthworld.com> wrote:
> There are many open source licenses.
Yes, just like there are many political systems - all supposedly for
the betterment 'of the people'. Even in democratic societies the
variations are tremendous - and their success also. And just because a
system succeeds doesn't mean it can't be made better.
>From my own naive perspective such success depends very much on
whether 'libre' is 'inclusive' or 'exclusive'. Where there are 'good
guys' and 'bad guys' then IMO you are only handicapping your own
success. I think the movie Invictus:
is a brilliant demonstration of the advantage of eliminating the 'us'
and 'them' attitude. You yourself have stated on this List that those
in charge of GPL, if anyone ever finds a loophole which skirts the
intended path that GPL has chosen to tread then the GPL will be
amended to immediately exclude that loophole.
As I linked previously, and indicated, I tend to agree with Linus
Torvalds that as the GPL has progressed it has become apparent that
it's an 'us' and 'them' kind of license. You offered the success of
Linux as proof of the pudding as to how great GPL is but you failed to
mention that the Linux Kernel is forever held to GPL v 2:
and this wasn't just Torvalds, but the majority of key contributors
realised that GPL v 3 was not the 'Mandela' approach to a world where
both open and closed software had it's place and both could help each
other achieve greatness they couldn't achieve on their own. You also
failed to mention that Torvalds' Git (now a mainstay of LC) is also
firmly GPL v 2.
Nor did you indicate that the majority of GPL software is still GPL v
2 or that the percentage of OSS using GPL is on the decline:
IMO an indication that whilst the original GPL goal was 'libre', some
started to realise that loophole closing was 'libre' only to those who
were 'white good guys', and it was heading down a more 'us' and 'them'
kind of mentality which was not the 'libre' for developers to choose
$0, $$$, open, closed or mix and match kind of future that Torvalds et
al envisaged would truly benefit everyone.
The reason there are many variations on the 'libre' license, is
because GPL v 3 clearly doesn't get everyone's vote as giving
'everyone' the freedom they are truly looking for in how they write
AND distribute their code. It's an attempt to make a good system
I agree with you, well Ludwig Mies van der Rohe - God is in the
details; you need to read the details and then carefully decide which
license truly gives YOU and EVERYONE ELSE the 'libre' to use and
Or to put it more bluntly, this attitude:
"Richard Stallman and the FSF specifically encourage library-writers
to license under the GPL so that proprietary programs cannot use the
libraries, in an effort to protect the free-software world by giving
it more tools than the proprietary world." -
strikes me as blatant, upfront, software apartheid.
More information about the use-livecode