Re: [flamebait] Lesser GPL
> Now consider the fact that the LGPL has a backdoor in it and allows
> you to convert the work to GPL. Debian could select LesserGPL'ed
> libraries that fit RMS's criterion and start converting them to GPL!
> Debian should, of course, formalize the criteria for converting LGPL
> libraries to GPL before proceeding.
>
> Debian is in a particular good position for redistributing LGPL'ed
> work as GPL. (although this may result in forks) Alternatively, GNU
> could make a 100% pure GNU/OS fork on its own.
Dear Navin,
and why would you want to do that?
I am sorry, but in my opinion RMS logic is totally flawed here and
also in contradiction with his previous statements on the subject.
One of the main purpurses of Debian adherence to DFSG was often cited
that any package can be used by anyone without the need to read license.
But what would we get by converting all teh libraried to GPL?
Not only ALL developers of commercial packages would not be able to continue
its work on Debian systems, but also FREE software developers who prefer to
use different license than GPL (Artistic in my case) would also be banned
from Debian. Is that what you want?
Thanks a lot,
Alex Y.
--
_
_( )_
( (o___ +-------------------------------------------+
| _ 7 | Alexander Yukhimets |
\ (") | http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ |
/ \ \ +-------------------------------------------+
Reply to: