Re: a better copyleft licence
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Jeffry Smith <smith@mclinux.com>:
>
> > If someone wants to distribute a proprietary module, let them
> > distribute it separately, and tell the user that it's there
> > responsibility to link it. Yes, it's a pain on the users, but if you
> > don't like it, use the GPL.
>
> I sometimes think the GPL might be equivalent to the LGPL modulo
> inconvenience, but I'm not sure about it.
>
> For example, if you want to distribute a GPL library with a non-GPL
> program, or vice versa, just distribute the non-GPL part on CD with an
> installation script that downloads the GPL part from some publicly
> advertised web server.
>
> I think the FSF would strongly disapprove of you doing this, but I
> suspect that you could win in court. However, it's not clear, and I
> can see arguments on both sides.
>
tough call, as is the installation script doing "distribution" or not?
I can believe the FSF would disapprove, but again, since the GPL
covers distribution, not use, nothing prevents a user from doing the
linking. And, at minimum, it's enough of a pain that the user (and
developer) would hopefully say "I want the full GPL, no hassles"
> What I was trying to do with my extra clause (in the message that
> started this thread) is allow this sort of linking of GPL and non-GPL
> components without giving up entirely the viral property of the GPL.
>
Since the "viral" property of the GPL is it's main reason (i.e. you
must release code containing GPL'd software under a license that at
least grants the same rights as GPL), I suspect you won't get a
change. However, the LGPL was designed for situations that you're
describing.
Remember also that you can link non-GPL code with fewer restrictions
into GPL code, and release the collective work under GPL (i.e. X
license code can be incorporated into GPL programs).
> If the FSF would sue someone for doing what I describe above and lose
> the case, then I wouldn't need my extra clause; I could just use the
> GPL itself.
>
> (Of course, when 95% of the world's software is free, then we can
> switch to a licence even stronger than the GPL, one that bans anyone
> from using the Program if anyone connected with them has at any time
> had any contact with non-free software ... :-)
>
> Edmund
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffry Smith Technical Sales Consultant Mission Critical Linux
smith@missioncriticallinux.com phone:603.930.9739 fax:978.446.9470
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought for today: despew /d*-spyoo'/ v.
[Usenet] To automatically generate
a large amount of garbage to the net, esp. from an automated
posting program gone wild. See ARMM.
Reply to: