begin  quoting Gabriel Sechan as of Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 06:03:14PM -0600:
> >From: Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[snip]
> >Okay. So I don't get to incorporate your code into my project. I have to
> >go find other code... and your code does not propagate. Where's the 
> >problem?
>
> Its sub-optimal.  Its not the end of the world, but its not a good thing 
> either.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Monocultures suck.  From that viewpoint, having multiple independent codebases
is a very good thing.   We should be very wary of chasing the chimera of
"optimal" -- especially when it's measured by some narrow metric, such
as code re-use or performance.

[snip]
> >Indeed. By design.
[snip] 
> And again, the whole suboptimal thing.  Its a good thing when projects can 
> reuse each other's code.

To an extent.

Besides, it's not the _code_ that's important to reuse; it's the interfaces.
Nail down a good API, and document it, and let people implement the API
themselves.  Eschew obfuscation, etc. etc.

> >(Of course, all this does is demonstrate the superiority of the Library
> >GPL; had we licensed our code under the Library GPL, none of this would
> >be a problem.)
[snip] 
> As for the LGPL comment-  we'll agree to disagree.  If you're too much of a 
> greedy prick to give me the code to your app, go write your own damn 
> library from scratch 

It works both ways, y'know.  It's one set of greedy pricks demanding
that another set of greedy pricks give 'em their source, to the
detriment of the users.  That's where universal use of the LGPL would
be a boon -- to the users.  More and better code reuse and cross
pollination, with protection of the _actual_ code.

My giving away code in no way obligates you to do the same; making
that constraint in my "gift" makes it no longer a gift, but a trap.

[snip]
>                                                   LGPL should only be used 
> as a targeted, tactical license-  use it when the benefits to free software 
> of allowing proprietary code to link to it outweigh the liabilities.  An 
> example would be libc, where the benefit is more users of free OSes, and 
> thus more free code overall when some of those users decide to help out.

And how does this not apply everywhere?

If all the GPL code is released LGPL, then changes _to_ the LGPL code
must be released, but linking in the LGPL code can be done everywhere.
This allows the LGPL'd code to be more widely distributed, used, looked
at, inspected, debugged, tested, and so forth... 

And if a company wants to give back to the community, they now have a
real motivation to.  Not because of some viral clause in an obscure
license.

I know of at least one company that has completely dumped the Linux
market because a bunch of GPL-advocates hacked their network, and
declared that a program to generate config files for GPL software
*must* be released under the GPL.  Consequently, the application was
abandoned, and nobody got anything.

(Personally, I don't think there was a case... generating configuration
files is obviously non-intrusive, but a lawsuit of any size can kill a
small company.  Thus, the GPL-advocates killed a potentially useful
Linux product in their zeal to make all software "free".)

[snip]
> >All very interesting, but I fail to see how this has any relevence to
> >the questions I asked.
> >
> >The code still exists.  It'll still compile, and run, and do its job.
> >So it'll stay GPLv2 (or whatever). Where's the problem? Why will it
> >cease to exist?
> 
> No, it just makesfuture collabaration more difficult, which is a bad thing. 
> Its not a "the sky is falling" problem, but it will cause extra work in the 
> future.

That's the natural result of the regular GPL, full stop. Dump the GPLv3,
stick with the GPLv2, and there's no problem.

> Of course, should my other point occur and Congress change the law to break 
> GPLv2, then THAT is a problem Linux can't survive.

Only when the jackbooted thugs come around to delete Linux off my disk,
confiscate my backups, and take my installation CDs.  (If Linux were to
be released as public domain today, by an act of Congress, say, "Linux"
would still survive.  It's not *that* fragile.)

Even if, there's still BSD, and now OpenSolaris.  I'll still have a room
full of UNIX machines. :)

-- 
_ |\_
 \|


-- 
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Reply via email to