Re: libreadline
* Glenn Maynard <g_dlegal@zewt.org> [020507 22:48]:
> > I don't think there is one solution for this, we should look at each
> > module seperately to see how to solve the problem. IMHO free, GPL
> > incompatible licenses are only annoying.
>
> On the other hand, GPL-licensed libraries are also annoying. It's both
> ends that cause this kind of problem: libraries using the GPL instead of
> the LGPL, and GPL-incompatible programs that want to use them.
I think one has to distinguish here: GPL-libraries that have something
unique, so that anyone wants to use the, are good to be GPLed as they
push GPL-compatible licences.
What I think is the annoying part of the OpenSSL<->GnuTls problem is
that OpenSSL is the bad guy, so it would be better to have the free
replacement making concessions to nasty program licences (i.e.
GPL incompatible) to get an stable standard library for this
more and more important part, that GPL-programs can use.
With having the free replacement licenced this strict, one only
archieves that the standard-library for encryption keeps beeing
OpenSSL, thus shooting GPLed software in the foot.
Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link
--
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve
nor will he ever receive either. (Benjamin Franklin)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: