If you're not GPL you're not coming in
A week ago Colin added a plugin licence check to Sylpheed-Claws. Naturally enough, this checks that the plugin is licenced under the GPL and refuses to load a plugin that is not licenced under the GPL. (Inspired by the current kernel discussions and patches around the use of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(), for example, see here, here, and here.)
This was a small code addition but not an insignificant one: it is a political act that makes a clear statement. It is a statement with which I am in full agreement. In my opinion, too often free open source software is leaning too heavily on the 'apologetic' when declaring its free status. From the LGPL downwards, this watering-down is not a good thing and will only lead to free software being assimilated into the proprietary, closed sourced, closed minded software industry, thus losing any power of change that it currently seeks to entertain. It is a submissive stance whose only lasting effect will be in the act of declaring its submissiveness. This needs to stop. Free software is not yet a fire, it is merely a spark, but already some are stepping outside to help fetch the water to put it out, some are swapping their freedoms for nothing in return. It is but a speck in the blackness yet, sad as it is, we cling to it as there is so little else to cling to. As is said, '…so long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so…' *
Thu, 15th Dec 2005 8:47:23 +0100
I couldn't have found such words to express the goal of the patch, but they're kind of perfect. :-)
UsingThu, 15th Dec 2005 16:46:29 +0100
My opinion is that using technical solution to prevent someone to do something is what we can find in copy-protection systems or DRM. Personnallly, I can understand the logic of tought that led to copy-protections or DRM. I can understand the logic of thought that led to these API.
UsingI don't like much introducing political in technical products. I just think that it could prevent some people that don't like political things from implementing plugins.
Thu, 15th Dec 2005 19:03:35 +0100
Hoa,
I don't think the comparison you draw, between this
plugin_licence()addition and the DRM, is a good one. They are worlds apart. The plugin licence restriction encourages sharing, through which everyone gains; the DRM on the other hand, as we know, is quite the opposite. I think it can be said that it is as much a philosophical decision as a political one. Maybe it is more assertive than is customary from this side of the fence, but I am standing up and I am ready to be counted. Typically the 'caring' person is trodden on by the 'no-one-but-me' types, it is these types who shout the louder and don't care whose ears they are shouting in, but we need to tip the balance in our favour, in everyone's favour. Even though it may be barely noticeable, it is still better than to have done nothing.As for the hypothetical person who doesn't like political things and therefore won't create a plugin for this reason, the only person who loses in that scenario is the hypothetical person. Anyway, everything is political, at least hypothetically.
Using