Re: GPL v LGPL for libraries
> > If Z' is GPL, then the commercial app can't be ported to Linux.
>
> Unless the commercial app is GPL'd. Are you avoiding the term
> "proprietary app" for a reason? Like, you think people won't respond as
> favorably if you admit that you're talking about proprietary apps?
>
> > A lot of big companies are not about to make their app GPL
>
> Well, yes, that's true. OTOH, if it's a proprietary app, it's really
> not of much concern to Debian, is it? Debian is about free software,
> last I checked.
Very true. Commmercial application can be released under other *free* license
though (NPL comes to mind). It is a concern for Debian then, isn't it?
And it looks like _GPL'd library_ has something against this *free* piece
of software. Do you see nay positive thing in this situation?
And this is the major point that is being discussed here - unfriendliness of
GPL'd libraries to the non-GPL'd (but otherwise free) software.
Which, IMHO make them antagonistic to many forms of free software, and
consequently non-free.
Alex Y.
--
_
_( )_
( (o___ +-------------------------------------------+
| _ 7 | Alexander Yukhimets |
\ (") | http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ |
/ \ \ +-------------------------------------------+
Reply to: