On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 03:32:51PM -0300, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > I wouldn't say that the difference is in what the licenses provide to > "developers", because --- although I *don't want to* sound offensive --- > thinking about the "developers" here is a little too much, it's like the > "how I'll feed my children". :) >
I don't understand the comparison. :/ > So, as far as I understand it: copyleft and so [AL]*GPL licenses, have > goals to try to ensure the four essential freedoms to the end users (no > matter if these are developers or not), and to do that they have to > limit some aspects of what the proprietor can do. So the comparison > perhaps must be done starting from a defensive position (from the end > user's side) to a liberalist one (to the side of the developer), and not > the other way around. > Well, LGPL doesn't necessarily do what you are saying since an LGPL library can be used in a non-free project so long as it is dynamically linked. (A)GPL solves this issue, but it also forces the subproject to carry the same license (or in the case of the GPLv3, it can be licensed under the AGPLv3, but not the other way around, that I am aware of) and on top of that prohibit sublicensing. Personally I would not have an issue with this (as I license just about all my software projects under the (A)GPL), but I know many people who would and would end up rejecting the library because it doesn't let them use their permissive license. -- Nicolás Ortega Froysa (Deathsbreed) https://themusicinnoise.net/ http://uk7ewohr7xpjuaca.onion/ Public PGP Key: https://themusicinnoise.net/[email protected]_pub.asc http://uk7ewohr7xpjuaca.onion/[email protected]_pub.asc
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
