Re: [GNU-linux-libre] license of 'yggdrasil' software

[bill-auger]

On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 16:03:29 -0300 Alexandre wrote:
> > me - isnt this effectively granting permission to proprietarize
> > the (supposedly) LGPL library?  
> 
> How's that fundamentally unlike the LGPL itself, allowing (as an
> additional permission over the GPLv3) its code to be included in a
> program that is nonfree?

it is different, because the LGPL ensures that everyone can get
the source code, for at least the LGPL parts, and the LGPL is the
only license which does that - no one adds an addendum to the
GPL, only to allow what the LGPL allows - its not sensible -
people who want that, simply use the LGPL

likewise, if someone wants to license software lax-permissively,
there are many standard licenses to choose from - it makes no
sense to take the LGPL, only to remove its primary unique
characteristic, reducing it to a garden-variety permissive
license

this is problematic, for example, because i noticed that
archlinux (and therefore parabola) and debian  (and therefore
trisquel and pureos) denotes this license as 'LGPL' - users who
see that will be misled into believing that the license is
copyleft, when in fact, that characteristic (it's most
significant characteristic) has been explicitly removed from the
license

the same is true for 'nmap' - those distros give the license as
GPL2, where is definitely is not = the license itself explicitly
declares that it is _not_ the GPL2 - yet most people believe
that it is

regardless of the specifics, i started this discussion; because
several similar discussions are long over-due; and there has
been no input from the FSF on these matters in nearly 5 years

both 'nmap' and 'yggdrasil' are in a state of limbo on the FSD -
i am seeking definitive answer from the FSF, regarding the FSDG
fitness of both of those programs - i do not believe that
distros should need to decide this for themselves, nor should
they even have that option - the FSF, and the FSF alone, decides
what qualifies as a "free software license" and what does not -
this current situation of each distro deciding that for
themselves is not valid - it is a disgrace, essentially a state
of emergency

a pending entry on the FSD, is a statement of:

  "the FSF has been asked to evaluate this software,
   but has not yet determined whether it is libre"

the FSDG prescription in such cases should be:

  "do not distribute these dubious packages,
   until the FSF has decided that it is acceptable"

yet FSDG distros are distributing both of these programs for
many years, because the FSF has yet to decide if their licenses
are acceptable