Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > The LGPL doesn't seem to prevent someone from adding a non-free > > > extension to a program. My clause is supposed to prevent the worst > > > abuses by insisting that the added code can reasonably be considered > > > an independent and separate work. > > > > That just means that someone can slap on somthing so that the code can > > run standalone. > > I intend the expression to mean rather more than just that. I could > add some explanation about what should reasonably be considered an > independent and separate work, but I think it's clear that each part > should be useful without the other part. For example, libssl is useful > without mutt, and mutt is useful without libssl.
Is mutt not still being developed by the original authors ? -- I though it was. This is generally the get out clause that most GPL'd packages use when linking against SSL etc. > > My impression is that your clause actually offers less protection than > > the LGPL. > > Why do you think it offers less protection? I was hoping it might > offer more protection. There is the matter of LGPL being in use already, which would make it more protective in many people's eyes. > Let's consider the example of someone adding to Mutt a non-GPL module > that lets Mutt talk to some kind of mail server. > > If Mutt were licensed under the LGPL (assuming it makes sense to > license a non-library under the LGPL) then I think you could make some > random small changes to existing files and put most of the new code in > separate files that could be licensed any way you want (and might be > binary-only). This isn't true, AFAIK, they would have to provide the extension as a seperate library (even the static linking stuff wouldn't get around this). -- James Antill -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] "If we can't keep this sort of thing out of the kernel, we might as well pack it up and go run Solaris." -- Larry McVoy.