Re: Nomination question: Redhat
Dale Scheetz wrote:
> I'm a bit surprised at this RH bashing over something that we should be
> agreeing with.
> 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.
Same argument could be made against GPL apps. You don't have the
"freedom" to rerelease them under BSDL, and then, in turn under a
proprietary license. I think this argument is (if you'll pardon my
language) a crock.
GPL'd libraries encourage free software. RMS, at a recent talk,
described how the GPL'd readline library had encouraged one author to
release his package as free software because he wanted to use readline.
Linus says, and I agree, that software authors should be able to use
whatever license they want. If people want to use the GPL for
libraries, well, I think there are good reasons for doing so. I don't
think we should try to force people to switch, and if RH does, then they
have earned my contempt, at least in this matter.
You and Bob Young are, of course, free to try to convince authors to
change their library licenses from GPL to LGPL. I and RMS (and others)
are equally free to try to convince authors of the opposite. I think
Debian as a whole should probably remain neutral on the topic.
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
Reply to: