Identi.ca Weekly Summary

Identi.ca Summary, 2011-06-19 through 2011-06-26

• The conversation that I mentioned last week about GPL for Javascript libraries continued in a new thread this week. The thread was rather long:
  • @fontana rather strangely argued that no one should use GPL for Javascript, this seemed like a generally anti-copyleft position to me, and @fontana went on further to say he's now anti-copyleft in some situations, when it relates to proprietary relicensing.
  • I pointed out, using OpenFOAM as an example that being against illegitimate use of otherwise good things doesn't mean you need to be universally against the thing.
  • There was a subthread discussing how GPL requirements work with Javascript, but the subthread diverged into a discussion of CLAs and Fedora, wherein @fontana strangely said that multiple copyright holders won't solve proprietary relicensing problem.
  • @fontana asked for example of a GPL'd Javascript library with multiple copyright holders (i.e., one that isn't using a proprietary recliensing business model). I'd much appreciate if someone can look for an example of a GPL'd Javascript library matching the criteria @fontana describes; I haven't had time to look. I offered @fontana a prop bet on this, regardless.
  • Finally, in the same thread, @jasonriedy mentioned the so-called Lisp LGPL, which I said was a seemed unnecessary now that we have LGPLv3.
• I noted that I wrote a blog post on OpenFOAM.
• I complained about the (lack of a) USA healthcare system.
• @fontana and I had a discussion about crossposting on identi.ca.
• I ack'ed that @fabsh had launched the oggcast, rantofabkuhn.
• The biggest news this week was that @kaz is now Executive Director of the GNOME Foundation, although the thread discussing it on identica was rather short. OTOH, @fontana asked if @kaz would be required to use GNOME 3.
• The thread about @allisonrandal's appearance on Linux Outlaws continued:
  • @allisonrandal claimed to have not said that those who chose strong copyleft were just as happy with weak copyleft relicensing. I found the exact place where she said that in the LO 204 ogg file, wherein she says at 36:15 and 37:30:

    Part of that reason is that when a developer develops code they want their code to be used. They may have a general philosophy that they want used. Most developers who contribute under a copyleft license &mdash they'd be happy with any copyleft license — AGPL, GPL, LGPL — they think — that's my “set”. …

    You're using GPL and we're using LGPL, so we can't use your code.