-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Jul 31, 2006, at 4:32 PM, Andris wrote:
We should convince both the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative that "Lucent Public License Version 1.02" is not a free software license. Mainly based in Theo's arguments*.
I most certainly agree, but this raises a question that I think really applies to the GNU Compiler Collection, how "free" should 'we' tolerate? Does an OSI-verified license mean it's free enough for our usage? God I hope not, I've had to work with some of Sun's licensed code, as well as Apple's (public) licensed code, they're both miserable, and absolutely intolerable in my opinion for projects that take pride in the freedom of their code. I highly doubt we would allow for a GPL licensed bit of kernel code (mostly because of the viral aspect of the GPL) but we are ok with depending on a GPL'd compiler collection? While I understand the improbability of this changing anytime soon because, frankly, gcc is the best and only option, but that doesn't mean we should be "ok" with the idea. While the GPLv2 is tolerable, the GPLv3 is looking about as miserable as some of these "corporate" open source licenses.
With something as critical to an open source project as the compiler used to build it, the community as a whole, as well as all of the BSD community would greatly benefit from a BSD licensed compiler, even if it is only a C compiler (and hell, why not some BSD licensed binutils ;))
I really don't want to start a holy war, but I am an idealist, and I don't think "we" as a community should settle for something like the GNU Compiler Collection (which I use every day, with about a 50/50 love-hate relationship).
Cheers, - -R. Tyler Ballance
This paragraph says it all: And come on it says "certain responsibilities". Good god. Are you people dumb to accept such a term in a legal document? It is like "your house mortgage can be considered invalid in certain situations and then we own your house". A BSD future for that compiler is not guaranteed, but I think a free software future is. I don't think Lucent would step back. Maybe they will use a copyleft license, but I think that would be much better than now. * [9fans] The new ridiculous license http://9fans.net/archive/2003/06/270
iD8DBQFEzn9SqO6nEJfroRsRAmzOAJ913NCZ6p0AhQisCEAR506NMGVanACdGJ3G 8F8zSJ5E2mF1suYGC7dMdyg= =n49N -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
