>>>The only case where I can see a problem is where a specific LGPL >>>library wishes to use Mozilla's code directly (i.e., not linking to >>>it). Is there really such a case? >>> >>I think so. That's the idea of open-source -- > > Screw open source. The idea of free software is that ALL users should be > able to run the source, study the source, adapt the source, and > redistribute the source.
In which case, let's just stick with the MPL, which is a free software license, according to the FSF. > The LGPL should only be used when it can do this > better than the GPL Straight off the FSF's rhetoric pages, as if they were the only two licenses ever to exist. -- namely, when the service that the library provides > is already commonly provided. The services that Mozilla provides do not > fall into that category, and therefore IMHO we have no need to be > promoting proprietary software. Did I really read that? From a man who just spent the best part of a year working for a company which makes proprietary software out of Mozilla code, and which is doing a great job of legitimising web standards in the mainstream through wide distribution is NS 6.1, thereby rendering Mozilla un-irrelevant? >>to have a large pool of software you can use to build new projects. >>Let's say, I want to use the TXT->HTML converter in an LGPL project. I >>may have to change the string classes, but most of the code could be >>reused. I would not even be allowed to reuse a few lines, if it is >>under the MPL or the GPL only (ignoring that I happened to write it >>myself). > > And that is exactly WHY I am against using the LGPL. An LGPL project > should NOT be using free software code. If the project wants the code that > much, it should switch to a strong copyleft free software license. Just like that? Given the stress we've been through trying to relicense, you say that sentence very glibly. > This is one of the main reasons we should move Mozilla to the GPL -- so > that this kind of problem does not arise. Do you seriously, for one second, think that Netscape (to name but one of the commercial companies which use our code and have contributed) will agree to that? Gerv
