[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [flamebait] Lesser GPL

> > 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.
> WTF? You know that this is wrong. There are lots of things you must not do
> with any package, and that is for example but not limited to stripping or
> changing the copyright notice, incorporate the source code in proprietary
> software and some things else. We do _NOT_ guarantee that any piece of
> software in our main distribute can be incorporated in proprietary programs,
> for example by using source code directly or by linking dynamically or
> statically.

Thank you for using an acronym. Looks nicer indeed.

See item 6 of DFSG. It contains the word "use". I used exactly the same word.
I guess we have to agree now on what meaning the word "use" has? :0

> > Not only ALL developers of commercial packages would not be able to continue
> > its work on Debian systems,
> FUD. And wrong, too.

Please explain. If we ship only GPL'd version of libc then developers could
continue to use Debian system only we we guarantee binary compatibility 
of our libc with other "free'er" libc's available. 

> > but also FREE software developers who prefer to
> > use different license than GPL (Artistic in my case) would also be banned
> > from Debian.
> ??? How is the LGPL more incompatible with the Artistic License than the
> GPL? Please explain.

Excuse me? It is infamously known that Artistic license and GPL are not
compatible (the reason for perl to be licensed under both of them).
And even proprietary software can be linked with LGPL'd library.


Alex Y.
 _( )_
(     (o___           +-------------------------------------------+
 |      _ 7           |            Alexander Yukhimets            |
  \    (")            |       http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/      |
  /     \ \           +-------------------------------------------+

Reply to: