Re: [flamebait] Lesser GPL
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 05:02:17PM -0500, email@example.com wrote:
> > > 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
The implication of your mail, especially the meaning of the sentence that
follows below (which is quoted from your original mail) means that you
understand something different by "use" then the dfsg. The GPL, even for
libraries, does not limit the use of the library in any way the dfsg means.
Everyone knows that your position is that the use of the library is linking
it with programs. We also know that this is not what the dfsg means. We can
read all details about this discussion in several threads in the archive. It
is not the first time you raise this issue.
> > > 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.
Is anybody speaking of libc? And even if yes, do we force developers of
commercial packagers to use GNU Lib C? No, we don't. They would have to use
their own C library, sure.
They could still use every free application in main which is linked with glibc,
couldn't they? This way, they even would "use" glibc, although they could not
use the functions provided by libc in their own application.
> > > 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.
Granted. I stand corrected. I don't think anybody is talking about libc in
particular, so we should first talk about affected libraries before jumping
to conclusions, right?
BTW, _everything_ you say against the GPL can be said about all GPL
applications, like emacs. Your objection stems from your very own
interpretation of the word "use" in context of library software, a
distinction I can't and won't follow. Any further discussion should probably
be initiated by your definition of the word "use" above.
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09