Re: Recently released QPL
I just want to make it short.
I was used to think that if I have to release a library to replace a
non-free one, I will make them LGPL. Otherwise, I will make the work
GPL. Now, after all this discussion, I think we need a more restrictive
one, kind of intermediate between the GPL and LGPL, something I will
be even more please to put my "uniquely-features" libraries (like
libreadline) on.
It should be something like the LGPL but restricting the linked code
to be also DFSG free. For this, the DFSG (or, for a better purpose, the
OSD) should be made more "legal". I mean that if I license something as
"This can be linked with any DFSG compliant software" will not make
easily in court, with all the loopholes we know the DFSG contains.
However, I should also add that any other restriction from the LGPL
will apply. So, if you want to hardlink the library to your program
or make modifications to the library itself, it should be made under
the same license. Risk to be contaminated with more permissive or less
well think license is too heavy to risk it.
Just my 0.1573$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabien Ninoles Chevalier servant de la Dame Catherine des Rosiers
aka Corbeau aka le Veneur Debian GNU/Linux maintainer
E-mail: fab@tzone.org
WebPage: http://www.tzone.org/~fabien
RSA PGP KEY [E3723845]: 1C C1 4F A6 EE E5 4D 99 4F 80 2D 2D 1F 85 C1 70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: