[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL v LGPL for libraries

> > If Z' is GPL, then the commercial app can't be ported to Linux.
> Unless the commercial app is GPL'd.  Are you avoiding the term
> "proprietary app" for a reason?  Like, you think people won't respond as
> favorably if you admit that you're talking about proprietary apps?
> > A lot of big companies are not about to make their app GPL
> Well, yes, that's true.  OTOH, if it's a proprietary app, it's really
> not of much concern to Debian, is it?  Debian is about free software,
> last I checked.

Very true. Commmercial application can be released under other *free* license
though (NPL comes to mind). It is a concern for Debian then, isn't it?
And it looks like _GPL'd library_ has something  against this *free* piece 
of software.  Do you see nay positive thing in this situation? 
And this is the major point that is being discussed here - unfriendliness of 
GPL'd libraries to the non-GPL'd (but otherwise free) software. 
Which, IMHO make them antagonistic to many forms of free software, and
consequently non-free.

Alex Y.
 _( )_
(     (o___           +-------------------------------------------+
 |      _ 7           |            Alexander Yukhimets            |
  \    (")            |       http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/      |
  /     \ \           +-------------------------------------------+

Reply to: