Re: GPL v LGPL for libraries
On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 11:54:17AM -0500, Stephen J. Carpenter wrote:
> > 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.
Forced? If you don't want to base code on a library, don't. If you do,
you should be willing to accept the author's terms.
> If bash was under a licence which forced all shell scripts using bash
> to be GPLd then would that be good too?
The obvious answer is that people would not use bash in that case. The
same goes for a GPL library. If you don't want to write your app under
the GPL, use a different library.
> What about a word processor which imposed such restrictions on any documents
> that you use it to produce?
This would be a restriction on use, not on development. The DFSG defines
such restrictions as non-free.
"Shall we play a game?" -- WOPR