Re: GPL v LGPL for libraries
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, J.H.M. Dassen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 10:54:38 -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > The move to LGPL increases the freedom of software because it allows
> > non-GPL software (which is still free under another license) to
> > "incorporate" such libraries without incorporating the GPL as the license.
>
> 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.
>
Good point, but that is no reason to require RH to advocate in the way
that we might. Making all the libraries LGPL helps eliminate problems like
KDE and has obvious advantage for a "commercial" venture. Our goals with
respect to license is to provide a set of packages that the end user will
be able to treat as "Free" without getting entangled in license
litigation. While incompatible licenses are a small thing compared to
other infringements on freedom, these are the kinds of issues we take the
responsibility to assure are unencombered.
Please don't take my position as one of an advocate. I don't feel strongly
about either, but I am concerned, when we get into discussions of the GPL
versus "Free Software" (the other free licenses), that we seem to want to
advocate that all free software will, eventually, become GPL. This is a
mistake that I believe the LGPL was, at least partially, designed to
releave. The LGPL allows other free software licenses to coexist in a more
symbiotic relationship, which promotes freedom over GPLness.
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: