Pitivi needs YOUR HELP
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
Another very promising free software project just started a fundraising campaign and tries to make money.
If you're somehow interested in video editing and can afford some, please help!
Nice to notice us with that quantum.
It would be nice to mention they are not so free software. They are a weak open source product. Their licence[1] is LGPL[2].
Far better options would be Avidemux[3], Blender[4], Cinelerra[5], Kdenlive[6], Lives[7], Open Shot Video Editor[8]. All available on Linux, most on Windows too. And all having the better GPL licence.
In the context, this sounds pretty much as spam. But most people can't see the difference between open source and free software[9].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitivi
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avidemux
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinelerra
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kdenlive
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiVES
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenShot_Video_Editor
[9] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
You are highly mistaken.
The lgpl is a fsf approved free software licence which can be read in the wikipedia link you provided.
Beside of this, sharelatex doesn't use the lgpl but the agpl:
https://github.com/sharelatex/sharelatex/blob/master/LICENSE
which is also a fsf approved free software licence.
You're better not calling something spam without having the slightest clue about it.
Sharelatex? Pitivi!
Lol ok I got confused since I recommended sharelatex as well in another post.
Anyway, Pitivi uses the Lgpl which is a perfectly free software licence.
So just replace "Sharelatex" with "Pitivi" in my post and "agpl" with "lgpl" and everything is still correct.
Another sign: having no idea which spam was discussed.
Elodie, what is your damn problem?
I promoted a free software project which is trying to make money. You come along, making many false claims, insulting my post as spam, obviously without any knowledge about any licence you've been talking about.
Three people proved you wrong and still you keep on ridiculing yourself by nitpicking about a mix-up of two posts which didn't affect my arguments at all.
I can read my links for you. I cannot understand the text for you.
It's open source. Far from free software. I even gave people a few free software alternatives in case they want to support such a project. Investing in Pitivi would be just another way to subsidize big corporations the same way the school system buys from Microsoft with tax money.
elodie said:
> It's open source. Far from free software.
What world are you living in? On Earth, this statement makes no sense whatsoever.
Every single program you mentioned is *both* free/libre *and* open source. All of them are under licenses approved by both the FSF and the OSI. The GNU LGPL is an extension of the GNU GPL written by the Free Software Foundation, described by its authors (the FSF) only as a free software license, and used for certain GNU programs.
I'm beginning to think you're trolling.
Yeah, it's obviously a troll, so I don't really care.
I was just concerned about the interested reader who might get the wrong impression, but many people helped out and clarified the situation.
So thanks to everyone!
"It's open source. Far from free software."
Which of the 4 software freedoms do software licensed under those licenses take from you?
And I've got a feeling that you might not recognise the difference between Free Software and *Copyleft*, the latter not mandatory in order for the former to be achieved.
Having said that I think PiTiVi should move to a copyleft license (whether it's the GPL is a different matter altogether), and I can't quite understand why they went for the LGPL, but that's not how one determies whether a piece of software is free, one determines whether software is free by looking at the 4 software freedoms, none of which breached by the LGPL as far as I'm concerned.
GNU LGPL is a copyleft license.
The difference between GNU GPL and GNU LGPL has to do with linking free software with a non-free software. The issue of transforming a free program to a non-free one is something else, which copyleft licenses deal with.
Read https://www.gnu.org/ for more info. For example, you can read https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html.
More precisely, the distinction is that the GPL is strong copyleft, and the LGPL is weak copyleft.
There basically is no *practical* difference between "free software" and "open source". Even rms tells it:
As far as we know, all existing free software would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions.
The exceptions are a handful unpopular licenses... and, obviously (given its mere name), the GNU LGPL is not among them! It is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation! You do not need to be good at English to read the three first lines of the license:
GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 29 June 2007
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
The (essential) difference between the two terms is to be found in the values pushed by the people using one term or the other: "free software" is about respecting the users' essential freedoms, whereas the term "open source" was specifically coined to not talk about ethical issues. Anyway, as rms tells, "nearly all open source software is free software". The enemy is not the open source software! It is the proprietary software.
Now would you please stop insulting users of this forum?
note to readers: copyrighted in this case, as far as I know, means copylefted (which de jure is a a way of applying copyright).
No, MB wasn't talking about copyleft. MB was talking about the copyright monopoly of the license text itself. In fact, the GNU licenses are all under a simple license which allows only verbatim copying and distribution of the license in full.
Not mentioned previously, "GNU" is also a trademark.
Whoops! My bad.....
Uh... you did see the name of the GNU LGPL, right? Notice "GNU"? It was written by the FSF for the GNU Project. It's the GNU GPL, but with the copyleft restrictions weakened for strategic purposes. It makes no sense for PiTiVi or any other program that isn't a library to use the LGPL, but using the LGPL in a place where it doesn't make sense doesn't mean the project is "weak".
Ironically, you pioneered OpenShot, the most well-known free video editor that markets itself as "open source" (look at the name!) in the same post where you said something about projects described as "open source" being weak...
I noticed Snowden had an EFF sticker on his laptop at some interview. Does that mean EFF makes laptops or only rebrands them as free laptops?
We are not talking about a sticker. "GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE" is the whole name of the LGPL. It is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation. Just open it and see: https://gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt
Dude, your English is far better than mine. So language is not an issue.
On a second thought, do you have a tape with "Breathe out. Breathe in" to help you through the day?
Except that this isn't about one's understanding of and ability to use English?
It means that he found an EFF sticker somewhere, or bought it, and stuck it on his laptop.
I thought about this as well. If somebody doesn't understand what this is all about, read
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben