On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 05:24:56PM +0100, 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. IMAO... The GPL and LGPL are both completely sound from the standpoint of free software ethics. Which one an author uses is completely up to him or her, and they shouldn't receive any static for picking either one. Some folks will want to GPL their libraries because they don't want closed-source software to use them. With LGPL'ed libraries, Ty Coon from the Yoyodyne Corporation might start selling something like, oh, an office suite to Linux enthusiasts under a shareware or "free for non-commercial use license". One consequence of that is that it may help to choke development of free competitors. After all, if you've got a user base that says, "well, I don't want to pay much/anything for my underlying operating system and libraries, but I don't mind shelling out bucks for games/word processors/spread sheets/big iron DBMS's/transaction processors/etc.", then you've got a much-reduced testing/debugging/assistance pool for any fledgling free projects of those types. Most free software non-puritans are willing to compromise on at least one of the above categories. While I won't be so negative as to say that this presents a permanent barrier to development of free alternatives, I think it's safe to say that it does present an impediment and a slowing effect. The LGPL is good for folks who perhaps come from a more BSD-type mentality. They want it out there, they don't care who uses it or links against it, and that's cool. But we shouldn't be harassing or trying to marginalize authors who write a library and GPL it. They're doing more for the free software community in the long run. Finally, before I get flamed, I'd like to acknowledge that the author of any original piece of software has the right to license it however he pleases. As a libertarian, I adopt a laissez-faire attitude. However, within the smaller context of "the free software phenomenon", one can make finer distinctions. We can't really be taken to task for calling MS's characterization of Internet Explorer as "free" a crock. It's most certainly not free. For this reason the "branding" of Open Source is important because it will (hopefully) discourage false advertising now that free software is the cool new kid on the computer industry's block. By the same token, it's not in any way hyprocritical or wrong to point out when a particular software license is not really promoting the ideals of free software. This is particularly important when said software is designed to work with free software or presented in that context. If Red Hat is actually guilty of trying to purge GPL'ed software (of any kind) from their distribution, or of harrassing the authors of such to change their license to something they consider more compatible with their capacity to generate profit, then they deserve the sternest of criticism, and perhaps we're the people to issue a statement to that effect. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | "Bother," said Pooh, as he was branden@ecn.purdue.edu | assimilated by the Borg. cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgp5Rkr6ut3Wn.pgp
Description: PGP signature