Re: GPL v LGPL for libraries
Alex Yukhimets <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
The DFSG does not require that all free software be combinable with all
other free software in a single work.
Perhaps that is a mistake?
This might be a sign that we have a definition of "freedom" which is in
some way vulnerable to proprietary manipulation.