[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: "toll-free bridging"

From: Stefan Boehringer
Subject: Re: "toll-free bridging"
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:58:45 +0100

Hello Strobe,

I'm a bit in a similar boat like you, living in a Objective-C hostile environment (of course not by proper reasoning, but by technical ignorance). As painful as it is, I have fallen back to plain C for the most part (and a bit of C++). BTW, I've come back to plain C after nearly a decade now, but having coded Objective-C (and esp. the OPENSTEP API) improves your coding skills - I can tell you.
GNUstep can be ported nearly everywhere (and is ported already). So I would code the other way round: wrap GNUstep to plain C (unless there is a community maintaining CF for the required platforms). New code goes to plain C and is wrapped to Objective-C for private use.
Of course I would very much like to see CF ported everywhere and maintained, but this is a task completely complementary to GNUstep - no conflicts. For myself I consider this a duplication of efforts, as of today.

Now going through flames :-)....
I havn't read much software licences. Didn't ASPL used to permit Apple to revoke the licence? Maybe this is one of the flaws they have removed.
We all agree that there is no such thing like a flawless licence, don't we? This group has a common goal: GNUstep - not LGPL or any ideology. The main coders (>80% of code) are (L)GPL advocates, so in my opinion it's o.k. we live with LGPL. Just a matter of take it or leave it.
On the other hand I want to stress that this group is not hostile to licences other than LGPL - certainly not. Any reasonable (whatever this means :-) licence (for me ASPL is) is acceptable for GNUstep related projects - like your proposal of a CF port. However there seems to be no way to change the GNUstep licence in the foreseeable future. But I can't see any pressing need for that.

Perhaps those interfacing issues will go away if GNUstep spreads throughout the realm of software. For myself I finally see the stone rolling. GNUstep is on track. Recently I have done some recreational coding on OPENSTEP which I want to port to GNUstep ASAP, which leverages on many of the strengths the OPENSTEP API has to offer (and is one of my private killer apps). I don't want to promise too much, but hope to release in a month or two [Digression: has anybody tried OPENSTEP with plex86 of bochs, which would help my transition to linux a lot].

At this point as in the past I want to express my deep respect and affection for all GNUstep coders, maintainers and persons doing documentation for their excellent work.

Best wishes,


strobe anarkhos wrote:
> > > > > Can GNUStep use Apple's "Core Foundation"?
> > > >
> > > >I don't think so. See <`http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html> for
> > > >details.
> > >
> > > Just because Core Foundation is licensed under the APSL doesn't mean you
> can't link against it. > > The restriction is the other way around. You can
> use APSL code as you > > wish, just don't expect all changes you make (if
> any) to be rolled back > > into Darwin.
> > >
> > > As far as the FSF, their line is if it isn't GNU it's BAD. They're very
> political. > >
> >
> >I had precisely tried to avoid this topic to avoid the flamewar.
> Flamewar? Huh?!
> >
> >I don't like the APSL and won't contribute a single comma of code to
> >projects under that license - *ever*. If you are happy with the
> >restrictions they put, it probably means you don't contribute any code,
> >otherwise the fact that a huge greedy corporation is just taking your code
> >and your work for free in the way Apple does and with the arrogance they
> >show, would bother you quite a lot.
> Have you read the APSL 1.2? I have.
> The only restriction is they can use your modifications without royalty. This
> restriction doesn't even apply in this case because you don't need to modify
> Core Foundation.
> There is no restriction to using any APSL code except you must include a copy
> of the licence. You can static link any APSL code into a binary and sell that
> binary so long you give Apple credit for the APSL code and your code doesn't
> modify the APSL code. If it does all you have to do is publish those
> modifications. It's less restrictive than the LGPL.
> >The FSF might be political, but they believe in what they say, they give
> >anyone the same rights they have for themselves, and what they want is to
> >make the world better - not to squeeze money out of other people's
> >pockets. Which btw doesn't mean they stop other people from creating
> >succesful businesses basing on FSF free software.
> There is no way Apple could possibly squeeze money out of your pocket if you
> chose to use APSL code. That's pure FUD on your part.
> For a change how about reading the license, or would you consider that a
> flame?

reply via email to

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