Re: GPL v LGPL for libraries
"Stephen J. Carpenter" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> 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.
Noone is being forced. They don't have to use the library if they
don't want too. The only restriction it places on software linked
against it, is that you can't hoarde it. If it didn't give that
protection, it wouldn't be worth using.
> If bash was under a licence which forced all shell scripts using bash
> to be GPLd then would that be good too?
But it's not, so why even bother hypothesizing? It's instead rather
explicit about how it's contamination works. Sometimes I wonder about
the definitions of linking, compilation, and such that it uses tho.