Re: GPL v LGPL for libraries
On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 05:24:56PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 10:54:38 -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > The move to LGPL increases the freedom of software because it allows
> > non-GPL software (which is still free under another license) to
> > "incorporate" such libraries without incorporating the GPL as the license.
>
> That's just one side of the story. The other side is that having libraries
> GPLed rather than LGPLed can help non-free software becoming GPLed. Readline
> being GPL-ed rather then LGPL-ed made ncftp free.
Ok fine...in your eyes that was good but...
As much as I don't like "proprietary software", and I try not ot use it as
much as possible, I also dislike the idea of forcing ANY software
author to use a licence they may not want to use.
it puts restrictions on its use.
If bash was under a licence which forced all shell scripts using bash
to be GPLd then would that be good too?
What about a word processor which imposed such restrictions on any documents
that you use it to produce?
-Steve
--
/* -- Stephen Carpenter <sjc@delphi.com> --- <sjc@debian.org>------------ */
"If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable"
-- Louis D. Brandeis
Reply to: