Re: Nomination question: Redhat
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Chris Waters wrote:
> 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.
I feel the same way about your comparison. You aren't speaking aoubt
freedom in the above statement. You are talking about violating the
author's copyright. I certainly have never suggested that.
>
> 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.
>
I agree that the GPL was correct for this library. I have said nothing
more than suggest that the LGPL has its proper use as well.
> Linus says, and I agree, that software authors should be able to use
> whatever license they want.
And the LGPL supports that point of view.
> 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.
>
Providing libraries under the LGPL is forces no one. They are providing
additional free software!
> You and Bob Young are, of course, free to try to convince authors to
> change their library licenses from GPL to LGPL.
If you actually read my posts you would not even suggest this.
> I and RMS (and others)
> are equally free to try to convince authors of the opposite.
You should be careful, putting words into Richard's mouth without his
permission. I didn't write the LGPL, but I'm sure that Richard doesn't
claim it is a "bad" license.
> I think
> Debian as a whole should probably remain neutral on the topic.
I suggest that Debian supports free software by recognising the GPL and
the LGPL as Free Software licenses, along with the other licenses that are
recognized as Free. This requires that we recognise the interactions
between these various "free" licenses. Red Hat has chosen to deal with the
problem by making libraries that they can release under the LGPL for all
those libraries currently GPLed. I have only been supporting their right
to do so without being held in "contempt" by the Debian community, and
nothing else.
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: