Re: GPL v LGPL for libraries
<email@example.com>(Alex Yukhimets) writes:
> > Yes, there is. It is both inconvenient to write wrappers for each GPL
> > function you wish to use, and inefficient as it is a lot of overhead to
> > call one routine. The difference is encouragement that you should release
> > the source to your program, and license it under the GPL.
> As you noticed, I was talking about the program with released source,
> and even more, releases with *free* license (say, similar to NPL).
> And why do I need encouragment in this case?
It was directed as a reply to your example, not to you personally. The main
point is the GPL prevents source being locked up in non free, closed
source programs. You say the GPL is less free because it restricts the
way you may use the code, I'd suggest that your definition of free isn't
quite the same as RMS's. I understand his 'free' to mean freedom of source
code, freedom of ideas, and not necessarily free in terms of cost.