Re: GPL v LGPL for libraries
> > 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.
Well, if we the author uses the source code of some other (original author),
then original author may put whatever restrictions s/he wants on the license
of the derived work. The problem with GPL'd library is that even in the case
when second author does not intend to use the code, but merely follow the API
of the library, i.e. *USE* the library in the only way it is intended to be
used - then I can see no reason for the original author to insist on license
restrictions. The code is clearly separated, noone claims credit for the work
of others, etc.
> it puts restrictions on its use.
... which is prohibited by non-discrimination clause of DFSG.
As far as example of ncftp is concerned, the problem with GPL'd readline would
arise even in the case when ncftp was already *free* but not GPL'd.
This "unfrienliness" of GPL to other kinds of free software often results
in duplicating efforts (I know that from my own experience) and causes the
author to even abandon idea of using *any* kind of free license beacuse of
the efforts s/he had to put into the cloning of library functionality.
Again, I am speaking from my own experience. And those cases are very hard to
trace - thay are not as loud as ncftp "freeing". So, this is yet another side
of the story.
Alex Y.
--
_
_( )_
( (o___ +-------------------------------------------+
| _ 7 | Alexander Yukhimets |
\ (") | http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ |
/ \ \ +-------------------------------------------+
Reply to: