On Mar 13, 2023, bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 16:03:29 -0300 Alexandre wrote: >> > me - isnt this effectively granting permission to proprietarize >> > the (supposedly) LGPL library? >> >> How's that fundamentally unlike the LGPL itself, allowing (as an >> additional permission over the GPLv3) its code to be included in a >> program that is nonfree?
> it is different, because the LGPL ensures that everyone can get > the source code yeah, but the GCC Runtime Exception, for one (another set of additional permissions) doesn't, and AFAIK that's never been thought of as being in conflict with the FSD or the FSDG. (Some hold a mistaken belief that software under pushover licenses does not fit the FSD, but such licensing arrangements don't conflict with the requirements of the FSD.) > this is problematic, for example, because i noticed that > archlinux (and therefore parabola) and debian (and therefore > trisquel and pureos) denotes this license as 'LGPL' ISTM that it follows that Arch [GNU/]Linux took up the permission granted by the GPL, and thus by the LGPL, and dropped the additional permissions, so the license that remained is indeed the LGPL. That is in line with the permissions, and it removes any of the doubts you appear to have with the license with additional permissions. The copyright holders have permitted the distribution of the software under the LGPL, and some distros are doing so, and including the corresponding sources, so it is indeed Free Software. So what is the issue? It seems to be a non-issue to me. > the same is true for 'nmap' - those distros give the license as > GPL2, where is definitely is not = the license itself explicitly > declares that it is _not_ the GPL2 - yet most people believe > that it is That is slightly more problematic or convoluted, because the GPLv2 does not have GPLv3's wording that explicitly permit dropping the additional permissions and distributing the software without them. Because of the wording of the GPLv2, however, it is often understood that modified versions of the GPLv2 that attempt to add permissions or even restrictions while retaining the original wording do indeed grant permission for the program to be distributed under the GPLv2, so one could conclude that those who name GPLv2 as the license have relied on that permission. Once again, the result appears to be a program distributed under GPLv2, with corresponding sources. What is the problem, then? (again, I haven't looked at specifics of the nmap licensing arrangements, I'm speaking in general terms, IANAL, and I don't speak for GNU or for the FSF) -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>
