dprojects wrote: ↑Thu Aug 11, 2022 5:57 pm
And I want you to tell the truth. Because the truth is that LGPL allows closed proprietary code.
LGPL allows proprietary software that just uses freecad as a library, has a lot of special conditions to define what constitutes "just use" and what is considered a combined work or derivative. I'm still not sure if an addon is considered a derivative or an independent software because it is both to some extent, the license doesn't appear to have been redacted for such a case.
A modified version of FreeCAD is most definitively a derivative though and making a proprietary version of that is most definitively a breach of the license, so I don't about what supposed truth you are talking about because everything I've said has been based on the text of the license itself and the FSF FAQ, I don't know if others in this discussion can say the same...
After all, the fact that there will be paid software based on FreeCAD does not mean that FreeCAD cannot be further licensed under the LGPL license. Nobody is going to take your github from you.
Are you seriously this naive? How long do you think FreeCAD will remain relevant if a company came tomorrow and replaced occt with parasolid then went ahead and distributed that as proprietary software for example. If you mean software that just uses FreeCAD then that is a non issue, they can do whatever proprietary thing they want.
This usually comes only from being angry with someone else's success. That someone else will be more successful.
Baseless accusation, I do not care if others are successful as long as they do it fairly without abusing other people, a proprietary version of FreeCAD is abuse and should not be tolerated.
But how can any company build anything on FreeCAD if it can't fix bugs on its own?
They absolutely can (and I wish they did), and it is more convenient for them if the fixes are merged upstream, why on earth would they do bugfixes as proprietary software? if it is to sell it to others then that is simply abusing free software, we do 99% of the work but adding 1% should suddenly give them the right to all profit without contributing back their code upstream?
A lot of companies fund the development of many free softwares out there, it being FOSS is not a detriment at all, on the contrary this is what allows companies to do fixing themselves rather than having to contact some useless help desk that never fixes anything but still charges you as is the case with many proprietary software.
Some solutions cannot be covered by the LGPL because they are covered by patents, or it is a secret sector, for example banking, military, even new products not released yet.
what are you talking about, how is banking related to freecad?
That is why such possessiveness hits the development of FreeCAD and growth. A lot of good developers would be interested in FreeCAD if they could sell their own code and earn a living thanks to it.
first of, you can sell LGPL software. Second, it wouldn't be
FREECAD (as in freedom, not as in gratis) if anybody can suddenly come and make it proprietary and make the original obsolete. And besides, I don't see this as an issue, if anything it is good that such developers that want to take this and make a proprietary version are not interested, they wouldn't be benefiting FreeCAD anyways.
Sigh... we've gone terribly off-topic and I honestly don't know why I keep responding, you evidently care nothing about software freedom so I won't be changing your mind, probably not going to continue, go be happy with F360, Adobe and the like.