Jeffry Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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