Re: GPLv2-only considered harmful [was Re: GnuTLS in Debian]
On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 03:13:01AM +0000, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 10:58:32AM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > That's also why I *don't* use BSD-style licenses for software that
> > I write, but rather GPLv2 or LGPLv2.1.
> So if someone takes your LGPLv2.1-only software and adds GPLv2-only
> code to it, do you feel similarly betrayed because you can't take
> that code back?
Yes; that ruins the whole purpose of choosing of the LGPL --
not only does the GPL not allow proprietary software to link
against it (which is, for me, the whole point of licensing a library
under the LGPL), but a change from LGPL to GPL is also oneway.
The only situation I find such a license transformation morally ok is
when taking parts of the code to incorporate in a project (let's say
that a library contains a neat utility function that might be useful in
another project. Linking against a library just for the sake of a
single utility function is pretty over the top, but borrowing that code
(properly credited, of course) feels perfectly fine.
/) David Weinehall <email@example.com> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/