IMHO wrong arguments in this thread, worth a reply.

[Myriam Schweingruber]

Hi Hugo, hi everyone,

Hi all,

Hi Myriam,
Maybe this would be best addressed with discussion at fsfeurope.org so that
everyone can participate.

Including discussion, you are right, that should have been my first
target list :)

http://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=99425
The arguments the users gives in his reply seem quite wrong to me, but
I have a serious cold currently and I struggle to write up something
that makes good sense. It would be nice if somebody could reply from
the "KDE is an associated organisation to the FSFE" POV. I know quite
a few of us use KDE and are certainly better than me in arguing in
that thread :)

I don't know if saying KDE is associated to the FSFE would really help.
After all, KDE prefers the GPL not because FSFE told them so, but
because they have a right and a benefit to do that :)

I totally agree on that. But if the KDE is actually an associate
organisation it is because the KDE Community adheres to the same
principles about Free Software.

But as I said, I have some difficulties in formulating a good answer.
I do agree with you that his reasoning is seriously flawed and I think
this needs to be corrected, hence my mail :)

Anyway, looking quickly at the answer, some things are factually and
legally wrong. Here's my NSHO (not-so-humble-opinion)

The relicensing will give much benefit to the small project like Haiku
(operating system) who believe to licensed their OS with permissive
license. GPL will hamper their objective, because combining Haiku and
KDE can risk future objective of Haiku just because the entire
combination must be relicensed under GPL.

I know personally a Haiku developer. I never heard of such things and
anyway, since Haiku already has its own custom DE, etc. this does not
make a lot of sense factually. I've asked the haiku developer for more
details on that.
Legally combining Haiku with KDE would not mean "the entire combination
must be relicensed under GPL." That's totally outside the reach of GPL's
copyleft.

So I think the best solution for that is LGPL (I even didn't recommend
permissive license). This is a solution that satisfies those who wish
to produce free software, and also those producing proprietary
software or having different goal.

I'd say the opposite: it's a solution that will probably satisfy no one.

?The free software is still free, and the derivative still get back to
the community. But this is give more freedom to the developers to
treat their own implementation as they wish (free as freedom ;) ).

So it gives more freedom to some developers to take away freedom from
the users (i.e. also from other developers) which is exactly against the
concept of "getting back to the community."

?GPL will limit this freedom, because even with some other free
software GPL, still have compatibility issues.

Saying that GPL limits freedom is totally untrue. The GPL gives more
rights than copyright law ever gives to users (restricting freedom would
mean to give less rights); and the GPL safeguards rights of users
compared to non-copyleft licenses, thus giving more freedom to everyone.

We can see by ourself even the free software still need proprietary
software. Device driver, flash, codec, etc. Freedom of software is
very important, but the usefulness of software is much more important.
Linux without binary bloob is useless. Distro without proprietary
codec cannot playback our favorite movie.

That doesn't make any sense to me.

Thanks a lot for your input :)

Regards, Myriam

--
Hugo Roy ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? im: hugo at jabber.fsfe.org
?French Coordinator ? ? ? ? ? ? ? mobile: [phone]
The Free Software Foundation Europe works to create general
understanding and support for software freedom in politics, law,
business and society. Become a Fellow http://www.fsfe.org/join
La Free Software Foundation Europe ?uvre ? la compr?hension et au
soutien de la libert? logicielle en politique, en droit, en ?conomie et
en soci?t?. Rejoignez la Fellowship http://www.fsfe.org/join

[Myriam Schweingruber]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 15:27, Myriam Schweingruber

Post by Myriam Schweingruber
Hi Hugo, hi everyone,

Hi all,

Hi Myriam,
Maybe this would be best addressed with discussion at fsfeurope.org so that
everyone can participate.

Including discussion, you are right, that should have been my first
target list :)

...

I sent a reply today:
http://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=99425&p=215331#p215331 with
quotes from Hugo's suggestions. Hugo, I hope this is OK for you if I
quoted you, I also suggested he subscribe to the discussion list if he
really wants to discuss licenses.

Regards, Myriam

[Matija Šuklje]

Dear Myriam,

sorry for popping up so late.

Maybe you could change in your reply that if they want an opinion on licensing
matters, they can write the FSFE Legal team on legal at fsfeurope.org


cheers,
Matija
--
FSFE Legal Coordinator
and Fellowship group Slovenia Coordinator
www: http://fsfe.org ?? || priv. www: http://matija.suklje.name
e-mail: hook at fsfe.org ?????? || priv. e-mail: matija at suklje.name
xmpp: hook at jabber.fsfe.org ?? || priv. xmpp: matija.suklje at gabbler.org
sip: matija_suklje at ippi.fr || gsm: [phone]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20120305/eb1dc433/attachment.pgp>