
LibreDWG drama: the end or the new beginning? (2012) - codehero
http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/libredwg-drama-the-end-or-the-new-beginning
======
tbirdz
A couple of objections:

1) I don't see how it is the GPL's fault that the Open CASCADA license is GPL
incompatible. The Open CASCADA license was created way after the GPL, and so
if they wanted to use their code with GPL code, they shouldn't have made a
license that was GPL incompatible. If they thought it was compatible, but it
turned out it wasn't, then maybe their legal team doesn't have the acumen to
fully design their own license, and they should have used one of the existing
known GPL-compatible licenses for their work.

2) The FSF has long anticipated potential incompatibilities between GPL
versions, which is why its recommended to license your software under the GPL
or any later version, and indeed such language is provided in the license by
default. LibreCAD's original developers changed the license to make it GPLv2
only, intentionally breaking license compatibility with software licensed
under future versions of the GPL.

If these people did these actions by accident without realizing the
ramifications then the GPL could be faulted for being confusing (despite the
very comprehensive FAQ page provided by the FSF), but I don't see how it's
GPL's fault when people go out of their way to be GPL incompatible, or
incompatible with future versions of GPL.

------
cjensen
It's up to the authors to decide which license they will choose. Complaining
that you can't use a GPL3 DWG library in your code is no different than
complaining that you can't use Autocad's DWG library in your code: it's not
yours; you do not get to decide the rules for using it.

------
fluidcruft
The GPL prevents you from shipping compiled binaries or modified source.

A LibreDWG plugin to LibreCAD is likely to be easily distributable purely as
source. FSF doesn't like to talk about it (it gets into quite dangerous
territory for them when talking about interpreted languages), but the reality
is that GPL relies on copyright. Specifically, it relies on their ability to
make a copyright claim to things you are trying to share. If they have no
actual copyright claim to something you're distributing, they are shit out of
luck.

FSF and licensing@ really likes to pretend that they can prevent this. But
they never give specifics and always talk in generalities. They are bluffing
and have no actual legs to stand on. If they have no copyright claim to
something, they have no actual power over it. At all. It's out of their GPL's
grasp.

Of course, the FSF also wants it both ways when convenient. For example, they
want to co-opt Matlab's MEX API for GNU/Octave, and simultaneously prevent you
from doing the same to their code. This is allowed because of their magical
"compatibility" wand. Apparently, they may copy interfaces as they wish, but
for nebulous reasons you are expected to trust them that you may not do the
same.

See also the existence of ZFS on Linux distributed as patches/source-code
shims (not a FSF issue as FSF does not own the Linux kernel, but ultimately
it's the same licensing issue).

------
AceJohnny2
tl;dr: GNU LibreDWG is licensed GPL3+, incompatible with projects that use
other open source licenses, including "GPLv2 only".

I'm a little surprised that a library such as LibreDWG is not licensed LGPL,
but come to think of it, this isn't unexpected from the hardline FSF
(Stallman). They want to create a coherent free ecosystem, and are unwilling
license their work with licenses that have known loopholes.

That's a damn shame for these almost-but-not-quite-as-libre software projects
such as LibreCAD, FreeCAD, Open Asset Import Library and Bender.

What's wrong with the OpenDWG [1] libraries, licensed GPLv2?

[1]:
[http://sourceforge.net/projects/opendwg/](http://sourceforge.net/projects/opendwg/)

~~~
r0muald
OpenDWG is not under GPLv2 - and that Sourceforge project is little more than
a stub, it's almost empty.

The Open Design Alliance [0] despite its name does not make available any open
source implementation of DWG.

[0] <[http://www.opendwg.org/>](http://www.opendwg.org/>)

------
retroafroman
This article is from the end of 2012. Has anything changed?

Edit: Not much:[http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/librecad-gets-
nativ...](http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/librecad-gets-native-dwg-
importer) but now QCAD can import some features of older versions of DWG.

------
clarry
I don't think it's fair to blame GPLv3 alone for this problem. Really the
problem is with all so-called free software licenses that impose conditions
(or restrictions) that might be inconvenient, difficult, or even (legally)
impossible to meet.

~~~
Alphasite_
You mean like GPLv3 does? GPL is hardly the be-all and end-all of freedoms,
its just trades some freedoms for others.

------
majika
The problem here is that the GPLv3 has more requirements of the licensee than
the GPLv2 does, but the GPLv2 says "you may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein".

Some extra requirements of licensees of GPLv3 programs:

\- Preventing tivoization: they must provide information on how to install and
execute modified versions of anything they build with the code, when they
provide the corresponding source;

\- Preventing DRM: anything they build with the code won't be legally
considered a DRM system, and they "waive any legal power to forbid
circumvention" of that system;

\- Protecting against patents: they must provide every recipient of the
program (in source or binary) with any patent licenses necessary to exercise
the rights that the GPL gives them, and if they try to use a patent suit to
stop another user from exercising those rights, their license will be
terminated.

I would place the blame of this situation at the maintainers of the GPLv2-only
libraries: why don't they want to use a license that prevents tivoization,
DRM, and patent abuse? If they've changed their minds on copyleft, why not
switch to the BSD license?

I'm not sure exactly what the LibreDWG developers asked of Stallman, but if it
was to change the GPLv2 or GPLv3, that's stupid. Even if he did, it wouldn't
help their situation.

On the trollish title: the GPLv3 stifling "open-source" development? Really?
(Edit: the title has since been changed) Let's talk about how all the non-
copyleft licenses let companies run off with the code to build their own
systems behind closed doors, and only contribute what they want, when they
want -- if at all? How does that support free software development?

I'm licensing my projects under the AGPLv3, because I believe that nonfree
software is harmful, and I don't want to contribute to its development at all.
I believe that a free society must necessarily operate on free software. I
want to encourage the development of free software, and discourage the
development of nonfree software.

The GPL was designed to ensure that the software stays free software; "to
ensure that every user has freedom". The GPL's protections may have sufficed
in 1990, but they don't in 2014. The GPL doesn't consider users of a web
service to be users of the software implementing that server. Thankfully, the
AGPL does.

The AGPL ensures that if the code is used to implement a web service, then the
entire source code of that web service must be free software. This way, I'm
not contributing to nonfree software, whether it's executed locally or
provided over a network.

~~~
pyre
How does the 'all or nothing' approach work in this situation? LibreDWG stays
GPLv3, but no projects can use it. Eventually the development team gives up
and leaves because their work isn't being used. But it's a _win_ for Free
Software because the license remained unchanged! A victory! Round of drinks
for everyone! We made sure that our work remained pure, despite everyone else
and their 'practical' concerns!

~~~
majika
I'm not sure what you're asking or saying.

The whole mess here certainly isn't a win for free software, but that's only
because there doesn't seem to be enough developers who care about free
software, and want DWG support.

I think you're saying that the GPL isn't practical. I just wrote this large
reply to a sibling comment on the whole practicality argument:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7886353](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7886353)

~~~
pyre
I'm saying this is a situation where a different license might make sense. The
Open Source projects that could make use of said library, can't use said
library because of GPLv3. No one else wants to use it, and the project is
dying on the vine. Maybe it makes sense to change the license so that the
projects that could make use of it, are now legally able to. This might
encourage developers to come back to the project, and improve the software
ecosystem as a whole...

~~~
majika
> I'm saying this is a situation where a different license might make sense.

I completely agree. That's why I asked in my original comment why the other
library authors don't want to move from GPLv2 to GPLv3+, or why the LibreDWG
authors won't switch to a non-copyleft license if they've changed their minds
on copyleft.

~~~
pyre
> LibreDWG authors won't switch

My reading of the article says that the copyright belongs to the FSF. It seems
unlikely that the FSF will ever change license to anything other than GPLv3+.

Some of the other projects seem like forks where the original code copyright
belongs to someone else. Unless the original owned changes the license, the
devs have their hands tied.

------
bane
The most free license, as in completely unlimited freedom as opposed to this
kind of "freedom forced down your throat" approach, is the one used by SQLite.

