Postings to the GNOME mail list have been the source of news stories around the web regarding the recommendation of Peter Van Hoof, seconded by David "Lefty" Schlesinger, for GNOME to leave the GNU. In order to put it to a vote they need [edited] 10%, or 36 votes, of the 357 member GNOME Foundation membership list. I can see Van Hoof's name in the membership list but "Lefty"'s is absent, as of 12/14/2009. In the entire thread those two are the only ones I can see that are talking about it. But, if they put up a petition page 10% of the members sign then a vote will take place.
Apparently, the thread is a continuation of the arguing that began back in November
RMS weighed in to suggest that a GNU project should not be promoting proprietary software. That gave opportunity for some to dredge up and rehash old, unrelated complaints in yet another attempt to marginalize RMS and the GNU.
It makes INTERESTING READING!
EDIT: I moved a section of a post I made to another thread to this, more relevant thread:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related to the MONO issue is a new concern, just arising. I read that certain UB members are calling for the removal of GNOME from the GNU. The GTK and Glib are also in the GNU. While de Icaza orginally created GNOME many developers have contributed parts to it and one can often see questions in the developers list asking about who owns (originally developed and released to the GPL) this button or that feature. The GNOME project states:
and the GNU states:
and it explains what having a program in the GNU means:
That last sentence states that the FSF holds the copyright assignments from the contributors of GNU (GPL) projects.
I don't know what influence developers of the various parts of GNOME who assigned copyrights to the FSF would have in getting all of those parts out of the GNU, or in keeping them IN the GNU. But, for what ever parts of GNOME than the GNOME foundation can vote to remove from the GNU one has to ask "Why would they do that?"
To ask to remove GNOME from the GNU is equal to asking that it be removed from under the GPL.
If that happens I believe it would spell the end to GNOME. No other license is as good for the user as the GPL, which is why proprietary software houses try to drown it in a flood of pseudo-open licenses at the OSI, designed to confuse people and detract from the GPL, for the same reason their acolytes attack the GNU and RMS. Without the GPL Linux WOULD NOT EXIST TODAY. Fortunately, there is an API and desktop which is completely GPL and will always be so.... Qt4 and the KDE desktop.
Apparently, the thread is a continuation of the arguing that began back in November
when Lucas Roche informed members that the GNOME Foundation Board had received complaints from community members about some of the posts on Planet GNOME.
It makes INTERESTING READING!
EDIT: I moved a section of a post I made to another thread to this, more relevant thread:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related to the MONO issue is a new concern, just arising. I read that certain UB members are calling for the removal of GNOME from the GNU. The GTK and Glib are also in the GNU. While de Icaza orginally created GNOME many developers have contributed parts to it and one can often see questions in the developers list asking about who owns (originally developed and released to the GPL) this button or that feature. The GNOME project states:
GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project, dedicated to giving users and developers the ultimate level of control over their desktops, their software, and their data. Find out more about the GNU project and Free Software at gnu.org.
GPL-covered software
The GNU GPL (General Public License) is one specific set of distribution terms for copylefting a program. The GNU Project uses it as the distribution terms for most GNU software.
The GNU GPL (General Public License) is one specific set of distribution terms for copylefting a program. The GNU Project uses it as the distribution terms for most GNU software.
In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we “copyleft” it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.
Copyleft also provides an incentive for other programmers to add to free software. Important free programs such as the GNU C++ compiler exist only because of this.
...
To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code, or any program derived from it, but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable.
Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing “copyright” into “copyleft.”
Copyleft is a way of using of the copyright on the program. It doesn't mean abandoning the copyright; in fact, doing so would make copyleft impossible. The “left” in “copyleft” is not a reference to the verb “to leave”—only to the direction which is the inverse of “right”.
Copyleft is a general concept, and you can't use a general concept directly; you can only use a specific implementation of the concept. In the GNU Project, the specific distribution terms that we use for most software are contained in the GNU General Public License (available in HTML, text, and Texinfo format). The GNU General Public License is often called the GNU GPL for short. There is also a Frequently Asked Questions page about the GNU GPL. You can also read about why the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors.
Copyleft also provides an incentive for other programmers to add to free software. Important free programs such as the GNU C++ compiler exist only because of this.
...
To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code, or any program derived from it, but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable.
Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing “copyright” into “copyleft.”
Copyleft is a way of using of the copyright on the program. It doesn't mean abandoning the copyright; in fact, doing so would make copyleft impossible. The “left” in “copyleft” is not a reference to the verb “to leave”—only to the direction which is the inverse of “right”.
Copyleft is a general concept, and you can't use a general concept directly; you can only use a specific implementation of the concept. In the GNU Project, the specific distribution terms that we use for most software are contained in the GNU General Public License (available in HTML, text, and Texinfo format). The GNU General Public License is often called the GNU GPL for short. There is also a Frequently Asked Questions page about the GNU GPL. You can also read about why the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors.
Why the FSF gets copyright assignments from contributors
by Professor Eben Moglen, Columbia University Law School
Under US copyright law, which is the law under which most free software programs have historically been first published, there are very substantial procedural advantages to registration of copyright. And despite the broad right of distribution conveyed by the GPL, enforcement of copyright is generally not possible for distributors: only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors.
In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to be able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright assignment, and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of any work-for-hire ownership claims by the programmer's employer. That way we can be sure that all the code in FSF projects is free code, whose freedom we can most effectively protect, and therefore on which other developers can completely rely.
by Professor Eben Moglen, Columbia University Law School
Under US copyright law, which is the law under which most free software programs have historically been first published, there are very substantial procedural advantages to registration of copyright. And despite the broad right of distribution conveyed by the GPL, enforcement of copyright is generally not possible for distributors: only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors.
In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to be able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright assignment, and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of any work-for-hire ownership claims by the programmer's employer. That way we can be sure that all the code in FSF projects is free code, whose freedom we can most effectively protect, and therefore on which other developers can completely rely.
To ask to remove GNOME from the GNU is equal to asking that it be removed from under the GPL.
If that happens I believe it would spell the end to GNOME. No other license is as good for the user as the GPL, which is why proprietary software houses try to drown it in a flood of pseudo-open licenses at the OSI, designed to confuse people and detract from the GPL, for the same reason their acolytes attack the GNU and RMS. Without the GPL Linux WOULD NOT EXIST TODAY. Fortunately, there is an API and desktop which is completely GPL and will always be so.... Qt4 and the KDE desktop.
Comment