Re: AdaCore ... the Next SCO?

["Hyman Rosen" <hyman.rosen@gmail.com>]

M E Leypold wrote:
>  (1) Your hypothesis (somewhere earlier in this thread) was, that the
>      the GMGPL linking exception is contradicting the GPL, i.e. one
>      can't redistribute with the exception clause intact.  The
>      interview has no bearing on that.

True. It's not even a hypothesis, really. I just wanted to
point out that the plain text of the license in the file could
be read in the way I described. It's certainly an affirmative
defense against people who say that you must not strip
the exception from the license.

>  (2) I think, that this direction on part of the FSF is a bad move.

Notice that this is not at all a change in direction, merely
a clarification of policies that have always been in place.
Notice that these exemptions can always eventually lead
to a user who is denied the ability to read, modify, and
redistribute a program.

> won't do FLOSS much good

Again, remember that the goal of the FSF is that when a
user receives a piece of software, he may execute, read,
modify, and redistribute it. The FSF does not care for the
"good of FLOSS" except as regards these four freedoms.
Anything which facilitates the creation of software which
does not come with these freedoms is bad, not good. The
LGPL exists because sometimes this bad thing is a
lesser evil, but the FSF isn't particulary happy about it.
For the most part, the FSF prefers no software to non-free
software. The LGPL is for cases where they fear non-free
alternatives may become popular if there is no open version
that can be used selfishly.

> After all, if I don't want somebody to strip the
>      linking exception from my code, I'll have to avoid the GPL in
>      future, since I cannot add a non-removable exception to GPL 3.

Or just dual-license, the way many other packages do.

>      Furthermore it would be annoying, if, a business adds improved to
>      a library under LGPL. Then a competitor adds more improvements
>      and strips the linking exception. The first company can now only
>      continue to use the non improved version.

Annoying to whom? Is there a user who loses any of the
four freedoms when this happens? If not, the FSF doesn't
care. Is the first company hampered by being unable to
use improvements without distributing under the GPL?
Good. More freedom for users.

> Somehow that seems to
>      me a break of the implied "sharing contract" -- I'd expect other
>      people to add under the same conditions (so that I can also
>      profit from their improvements, not introducing different rules
>      that exclude application areas for earlier contributors).

What you are describing is a cartel whose members
collude for their mutual benefit and to the detriment of
their users, who may be denied the four freedoms.
You really must learn to separate your needs and
desires as a programmer from the four freedoms that
the FSF wants users to have. The purpose of the extra
conditions is to avoid having to distribute a program
under the GPL. The main goal of avoiding the GPL is
generally to deny users the freedoms it would grant.

>  (As a reference: You can't convert LGPL 2 to GPL, that much is
>      certain in my eyes).

Have you read the LGPL? <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html>
    3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU
    General Public License instead of this License to a given
    copy of the Library. To do this, you must alter all the
    notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the
    ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead
    of to this License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the
    ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then
    you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Do not
    make any other change in these notices.

    Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible
    for that copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License
    applies to all subsequent copies and derivative works made
    from that copy.