I think we can’t find an agreement on our angles on the topic so much that it’s simply not constructive to push the conversation further. I’m afraid that if I’ll try to say anything now, it’ll be a repetition of what was already written earlier.
In short, I see Slint as a not GPL project (but rather as a commercial project that happens for now to triple-license the code and includes GPL). I see GPL projects as fundamentally different to Slint, in a sense that, once you have enough external contributors, you simply cannot revert back and stop being a GPL project, whereas in Slint I see it as possible. I trust GPL projects and I know I can “lean” on them, whereas I’d advise to rely on Slint only if you have commercial entanglement that you want to keep.
So to be a GPL project you need to be able to trust the project to release all future releases under GPL in addition to having released existing code under GPL?
I do not like this approach:
First of, you need a crystal ball to decide whether a project is GPL or not: Some projects managed to pull off a license change before, just by asking devs whether they are ok and replacing code from devs that did not agree. Its rare, but it happens, so checking for CLAs, copyright assignments, …, is not enough.
Secondly this definition excludes lots of projects that release their source code under GPL, including the GNU project. They ask for copyright assignment, both to defend the GPL license, as well as to be able to relicense when weaknesses in the current licenses are found. I give you that GNU is probably way more trustworthy wrt. not changing away from the free software spirit than some random company.
Some projects managed to pull off a license change before
I think you’re right, the reality is not actually so black-and-white. With the GNU project indeed being a notable “exception” of sorts. And, while I can’t think of any single project that would change from GPL and still be alive, I think I’ve heard about at least attempts of doing so once, more than a decade ago, not too successful IIRC.
So to be a GPL project
But to answer the question… I’m not trying to say what is a GPL project. But sometimes I can tell when something isn’t [a GPL project], and Slint isn’t. It doesn’t revolve around copyleft and its ideology. Neither is MySQL. MariaDB is. MariaDB is easier to fork off MySQL than it would be off Slint though. Slint has much broader API, more evolving too I’d assume (but I don’t know).
So my recommendation on when to use or not use Slint would still hold. And I still insist that it’s factually correct to say that Slint is not a GPL project.
I revolve very much around copyleft and its ideology. Free software formed my entire career, just as it did for the founders of Slint. From my point of view slint is GPL and offers some other license options for users that do not want GPL for whatever reason.
Forking slint is just as easy as forking any other GPL licensed project: Take all off slints code under GPL and you are done. Yes, you can not relicense that fork to a more permissive license without replacing all the code that you did not write… but that is exactly the same as with any other GPL project you fork. Any use of Slint under GPL is exactly as using any other GPL project, with the same obligations and protections to all parties involved.
I get that you are feeling slint is not GPL, but I do not understand where that feeling comes from. Is it “just” because there is a company backing it? Or because that company is selling their product in addition to oing it under GPL? That is fine for the GNU project from all I understand. Or is it because of contributions happen under MIT terms? But that does not effect the end users that the GPL is protecting in any way.
I think we can’t find an agreement on our angles on the topic so much that it’s simply not constructive to push the conversation further. I’m afraid that if I’ll try to say anything now, it’ll be a repetition of what was already written earlier.
In short, I see Slint as a not GPL project (but rather as a commercial project that happens for now to triple-license the code and includes GPL). I see GPL projects as fundamentally different to Slint, in a sense that, once you have enough external contributors, you simply cannot revert back and stop being a GPL project, whereas in Slint I see it as possible. I trust GPL projects and I know I can “lean” on them, whereas I’d advise to rely on Slint only if you have commercial entanglement that you want to keep.
I’d propose to agree to disagree.
So to be a GPL project you need to be able to trust the project to release all future releases under GPL in addition to having released existing code under GPL?
I do not like this approach:
First of, you need a crystal ball to decide whether a project is GPL or not: Some projects managed to pull off a license change before, just by asking devs whether they are ok and replacing code from devs that did not agree. Its rare, but it happens, so checking for CLAs, copyright assignments, …, is not enough.
Secondly this definition excludes lots of projects that release their source code under GPL, including the GNU project. They ask for copyright assignment, both to defend the GPL license, as well as to be able to relicense when weaknesses in the current licenses are found. I give you that GNU is probably way more trustworthy wrt. not changing away from the free software spirit than some random company.
I think you’re right, the reality is not actually so black-and-white. With the GNU project indeed being a notable “exception” of sorts. And, while I can’t think of any single project that would change from GPL and still be alive, I think I’ve heard about at least attempts of doing so once, more than a decade ago, not too successful IIRC.
But to answer the question… I’m not trying to say what is a GPL project. But sometimes I can tell when something isn’t [a GPL project], and Slint isn’t. It doesn’t revolve around copyleft and its ideology. Neither is MySQL. MariaDB is. MariaDB is easier to fork off MySQL than it would be off Slint though. Slint has much broader API, more evolving too I’d assume (but I don’t know).
So my recommendation on when to use or not use Slint would still hold. And I still insist that it’s factually correct to say that Slint is not a GPL project.
I revolve very much around copyleft and its ideology. Free software formed my entire career, just as it did for the founders of Slint. From my point of view slint is GPL and offers some other license options for users that do not want GPL for whatever reason.
Forking slint is just as easy as forking any other GPL licensed project: Take all off slints code under GPL and you are done. Yes, you can not relicense that fork to a more permissive license without replacing all the code that you did not write… but that is exactly the same as with any other GPL project you fork. Any use of Slint under GPL is exactly as using any other GPL project, with the same obligations and protections to all parties involved.
I get that you are feeling slint is not GPL, but I do not understand where that feeling comes from. Is it “just” because there is a company backing it? Or because that company is selling their product in addition to oing it under GPL? That is fine for the GNU project from all I understand. Or is it because of contributions happen under MIT terms? But that does not effect the end users that the GPL is protecting in any way.