On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 02:54:14PM -0700, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > It's kind of ironic that the LGPL which RMS so despises may turn out to > offer better freedom than the GPL since no businesses are interested in > a dual-license model when someone could just fork the code anyhow. If the LGPL allows businesses to declare themselves supporters of free software, yet not allow the community the freedom to fork the code, how is this more freedom? How can a less free license result in more freedom in any situation? I can see access to more source code, but that isn't the same.
I don't see how multi-licensing is relevent either. If you can obtain the software under one license you like, like the GPL, then the other licenses do not apply to you. If the company goes out of business or changes the licensing terms, you still have the last free software version to continue development if you want. And if you can't get the software under a free license, then it is not free software. -- Martin Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP Key ID: 2B01DD81 Keyserver: pgpkeys.mit.edu -- KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
