On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > 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. >
tough call, as is the installation script doing "distribution" or not? I can believe the FSF would disapprove, but again, since the GPL covers distribution, not use, nothing prevents a user from doing the linking. And, at minimum, it's enough of a pain that the user (and developer) would hopefully say "I want the full GPL, no hassles" > 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. > Since the "viral" property of the GPL is it's main reason (i.e. you must release code containing GPL'd software under a license that at least grants the same rights as GPL), I suspect you won't get a change. However, the LGPL was designed for situations that you're describing. Remember also that you can link non-GPL code with fewer restrictions into GPL code, and release the collective work under GPL (i.e. X license code can be incorporated into GPL programs). > 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 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jeffry Smith Technical Sales Consultant Mission Critical Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone:603.930.9739 fax:978.446.9470 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thought for today: despew /d*-spyoo'/ v. [Usenet] To automatically generate a large amount of garbage to the net, esp. from an automated posting program gone wild. See ARMM.