Re: [DebianGIS] OpenDAP license is LGPL
> > > On the basis of upstream sources, OpenDAP is released under
> > > LGPL-2.1 not the 'viral' GPL as stated in debian/copyright.
> >
Hamish wrote:
> > Please, because the GPL is only ever entered into with the
> > developer's conscious choice, the word "viral" is inaccurate and
> > (to me) rather insulting. You decide if you want to invite it in
> > or not, no one is forcing you to use it or sneaking it into your
> > code behind your back.
> >
> > the phrase is intentionally negative and misleading propaganda.
> > please don't propagate it.
Francesco wrote:
> It was not intended as so.
I know, and I didn't mean to single you out, which is why I
removed your name from the reply. It was directed at everyone
who might use that. You are certainly the subject of much
respect for your wonderful efforts here and obviously a good
and steady friend to FOSS.
Let me explain why the "viral GPL" phrase is so insulting to me-
I, and I expect a lot of you too, give up a lot of my free time
and energy into working on free software tools used by researchers,
students, NGOs, and cash-strapped gov't agencies of countries
big and small. In this case public officers of the Microsoft
Corporation have come out and slandered me, my good works, and
the work of my respected colleagues by labeling it as a virus.
And unfortunately this phrase, while inaccurate, has become
"infective" ...
>From MS's background the obvious mental association they were
trying to plant is with the damage caused by computer viruses,
but in some projects I work on the GPL tools are used by public
health NGOs and governments of developing nations*. Many of
these users work with real retroviruses which have truly
terrible connotations and realities for them. The users and
decision makers are generally not software license experts, so
popularly smearing our free tool+gifts with that label harms
deployment, and thus is tangibly damaging to real people who
need help, and so is completely unconscionable.
If I can commit the error of lumping the man and his company
together for a moment, a strange irony of this is that the Gates
Foundation is otherwise doing more for public health in
developing nations than most first world countries are.
[*] (there are few profits in this niche so their software needs
are generally not well catered for by for-profit proprietary
companies, and so it's an easy home for FOSS solutions)
What really frustrates me is that this self-damaging FUDspeak
has entered the FOSS community's lexicon too.
and so I complain. :)
> It was a short form for a whole sentence about the requirement
> to use the same license for derived works whenever you use GPL
> licensed libraries. If you could provide a single word to
> intend the same thing in english, please let me know.
"strong copyleft"?
> Note also the use of ticks around the word. I'm not
> interested in embracing holy wars about licenses.
fwiw I find that bringing religion into the discussion also to
be fraught with problems, but I have no intention to start
a flame war here about that. ;-)
> But I was interested in not changing upstreams choices.
sure, I've no problem with discovering why the change was made
and sync'ing with what the code's authors intended to use.
n.b. I've noticed some packages have put the debian/ packaging
(control, rules, ...) under GPL while the main project is not,
which can cause some confusion.
> Anyway in the specific case of OpenDAP, Alastair agreed about
> re-establishing the right (i.e. as selected by upstream)
> license.
regards and thank you for listening to my little rant,
Hamish
Reply to: