Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> It's not a done deal. You can change the LGPL to the GPL at any moment
> according to cause 3 of the LGPL. If there isn't any reason to license
> it under the LGPL, I suggest licensing it under the GPL. It protects the
> freedom of the code much better.
Does it? I can't think of anything that I can do with an LGPL'd product
that I can't do with a GPL product that in any way damages the "freedom" of
the code. If you can think of anything, I suggest you discuss it with the
FSF's lawyers, because they've worked hard to make the LGPL as watertight as
the GPL while giving users of the code a few more freedoms.
> I am not sure wether it's possible to
> run plex86 on windoze (I don't care about it either, but other people do
> afaics), but we could make an exception for that.
Adding exceptions to licences is a bad idea, IMHO, unless they are very
clean and apply in a broad set of circumstances (such as the so-called 'libc
exception', which states "merely linking with this library does not cause
the result to come under the provisions of the GPL" (my paraphrasing)).
> Oh by the way, I don't speak about open source anymore, I prefer the
> term free software. You can find the reasons why I do speak about free
> software at the following homepage:
> http://www.fsfeurope.org/documents/whyfs.en.html
>
And I use 'open source' because of the reasons here:
http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/free-notfree.html
Does it really matter enough to raise it here?
> > If one steps back a minute and looks at the big picture,
> > it is more obvious that the real issues regarding
> > many of these GPL vs LGPL discussions stem from
> > architectural defects in the software, not the
> > fscking license. Make everything modular by design,
> > give it a "library" license and then you can share it.
> > This of course means you need a common interface. Those
> > are technical issues.
>
> The LGPL isn't a license for libraries, only often used for that. That's
> why it's also renamed to Lesser GPL. The GPL is better for a lot of
> libraries.
Is it? In my experience, GPL tends to discourage library use, as you can
only really use a GPL library in a GPL program. Despite what you may wish
for, there are a lot of programs out there that aren't GPL.
> You can also make software modular by design and put it under
> the GPL, no problem with that. It's the thing what's done in GNU's
> kernel replacement, the Hurd (note: The Hurd isn't a kernel, it are a
> bunch of servers running on a microkernel). I don't see what licensing
> has to do with architectural defects.
Parts of the Hurd couldn't be shared with a system that wasn't GPL. This is
probably what the Hurd's authors intended. Kevin (and others) obviously
intended to allow parts of Plex86 to be shared with software that isn't GPL.
> > But the biggest problem is that us OSS idiots repeatedly
> > reinvent stuff over and over and over. Then squabble when
> > we have trouble sharing code, because of inane licensing
> > issues.
>
> There might be a reason for reinventing stuff. Maybe to do it better, or
> because you have another goal in mind. I don't see why it's idiotic to
> reinvent something if you feel it is better to do.
Because very often the only reason for doing so is because you want to have
it available under a different licensing scheme. LGPL avoids this by
allowing the result to be used under a different license under certain
expectations which are easy to meet in most circumstances (although the
question of using LGPL code in a non-LGPL embedded system has been raised,
and is probably a violation of the licence).
> > "Fail to plan, plan to fail"
> >
> > My suggestion is that if sharing is desired, pursue a
> > common modular plugin interface.
>
> That might be useful, but that can sitll be done under the GPL. You
> should not do such things just because of the licenses, but because it's
> the Right Thing.
You can't do it under the GPL if one of the applications intended to use the
plugins isn't under the GPL.
Sorry, I for one firmly believe that plex86 should remain LGPL, and I'm sure
there are many others on this list who would agree with me.
Jules
(an interested lurker)
