From: Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.
I disagree with you. I find myself agreeing with RMS- its best for the
user if all the code is free. Even if the user isn't a programmer himself,
he can beg or pay for alterations, additions, etc- so long as all of the
code is free. The GPL enforces that, the LGPL does not.
> 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.
Unfortunately, the GPLv3 looks to have useful clauses that the GPLv2 does
not (particularly patent protection). We'll have to wait for the final
revision to see.
> 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.)
Public domain does not legally exist, UNLESS copyright is expired. There is
no such thing as public domain for material younger than the 1920s.
Additionally, to go PD, you'd need the permission of anyone who's ever
written a line of linux code. If the GPLv2 was found invalid, GPLv2ed code
would default back to standard copyright by owners.
Gabe
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
