Re: a better copyleft licence
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.
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.
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
Reply to: