Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use
On 28-Jun-01, 14:53 (CDT), Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> wrote:
> Scripsit tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
> > Why do you think a strong GPL implies "the entire world must use MY
> > license"?
>
> That's the entire point behind the difference between GPL and LGPL.
Wrong.
> > I want a strong GPL, and I want "the code I wrote shall
> > stay free", and I see a strong GPL as one way to achieve that goal.
>
> LGPL achieves it too. The only extra thing GPL says is that
> "if you reuse my code, I'm not satisfied that you keep MY
> code free. The code YOU write by yourself must also have MY
> license."
The key phrase is "if you reuse my code". No one forces you to reuse
GPL code. You are presumably doing so because it makes it easier to
accomplish the desired goal. Therefore you are benefitting from work I
did, and made available. The price you pay for that work is that you
have to make your work available too. What is so unreasonable about
that? If you don't want to pay the price, fine. Nobody is forcing you to
do so.
(And Thomas is correct. This belongs in gnu.misc.discuss. (Or not --
it's been hashed out hundreds of times already). But this particular
argument (Henning's) makes me crazy, because the answer is so obvious,
and I don't understand why the proponents of "the GPL steals my code"
can't (won't?) see it.)
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
Reply to: