[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "toll-free bridging"

From: Frederic Stark
Subject: Re: "toll-free bridging"
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 17:08:01 +0100

> The LGPL doesn't say "do whatever RMS commands".

Then, you have badly phrased your original question. You should have said:

"Can I mix LGPL and APSL" ?

You would got you the nice answer of:

"What do you ask this on the GNUstep list ?"

> >You original, question was:
> >
> > > Can GNUStep use Apple's "Core Foundation"?
> >
> >As CF is APSL, GNUstep is FSF, and FSF said 'avoid APSL code', I   
> >think that the answer is NO.
> Gee, I'm glad I haven't been assimilated. I prefer having a free will.

It is not the question. You can do whatever you want. The only  
trouble is that the result is not going to be integrated into  
GNUstep. As you said in a previous post:

"just don't expect all changes you make (if any) to be rolled back  
into Darwin"

the FSF position is:

"just don't expect all changes you make (the addition of CF) to be  
rolled back into GNUstep"

I fail to see any difference.

> In all honesty your answer has been the least evasive and most  
honest one.

Thank you.

> All your base belongs to RMS.

All your base *are* belong to RMS. :-)

> >Less brutal answer:
> >
> >As you may discover by reading
> ><http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html> there is still one big   
> >limitation imposed by the APSL license that make impractical to take   
> >code from it for use in the GNU project.
> I've read the APSL and it's BS.

Maybe I should quote the gnu.org page:

In January 2001, Apple released another version, ASPL 1.2. This  
version fixes two of the fatal flaws, but one still remains: any  
modified version "deployed" in an organization must be published. The  
APSL 1.2 has taken two large steps towards a free software license,  
but still has one more large step to take before it qualifies.

The *only* problem RMS have with APSL is this publication clause. I  
don't see why you says the page is BS(*), as this publication clause  
is present in APSL. Maybe you missed the two updates that have been  
done to both the APSL and the gnu.org page ?

> Have you READ the APSL? It's brutally clear.

I have. You said in a previous mail: "they only force you to publish  
modifications. It doesn't matter anyway because from what I can see  
no modifications are necessary". Maybe it is not a problem for you,  
but it looks like RMS/FSF thinks that pushing this onto GNUstep users  
would be too much.

Anyway, I fail to understand why it matters. If the FSF don't want  
APSL code, you can't do anything. Apple, for instance, refuses to  
bundle gzip with Mac OS X. I hate this, it have no legal ground, but  
can't do anything. It is their OS. When linus torvalds say 'NO' to  
something in linux, it is the same problem.

FSF stated they don't want APSL code because of this 'publication  
clause'. If apple would drop it, RMS would probably flip its coin  



(*) Well, I know, but let's pretend I don't :-)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]