Re: New LGPL and references in copyright files.
[I already replied privately before I realized this was also posted to
the mailing list, so I'll just repeat my main point.]
Havoc Pennington <rhp@zirx.pair.com> writes:
> So, I don't think a vague worry about RMS going loopy should outweigh the
> concrete, immediate, and demonstrable disadvantages of doing this.
My position is that "or any future version" is a moral disadvantage,
which outweighs all technical concerns. The package in question is
LGPLed not because I want it to be, but because it is required; I have
put a lot of work into rewriting my code, deliberately turning away
contributions, so that I can free it of that restriction and put it
under a more reasonable, MIT-like license. (That will happen in a
matter of weeks. Or perhaps tonight, since I'm in the right frame of
mind to do the last bit of repackaging work.)
If the FSF changes the LGPL in ways I disagree with (as seems very
likely), explicitly saying "or any other future version" is, in
effect, an endorsement of those future changes. I am unwilling to
endorse, or directly license my code under, some random future
FSF-spawned license just because it happens to be called "LGPL" -- I
simply don't agree with the FSF on licensing policy, and I don't trust
them not to make changes I would consider offensive. I would rather
have my code be completely unusable, than willingly license it in a
way I disagree with.
(Yes, I know that if my code is MIT-licensed, it can be used in a LGPL
project. That's perfectly fine with me; my work is not affected by
that.)
--Rob
--
Rob Tillotson N9MTB <robt@debian.org>
Reply to: