On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Andrew Collier wrote: > From paragraph 2: > > >If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, > >and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in > >themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those > >sections when you distribute them as separate works. > > Okay, I've just noticed that they indeed do have to be distributed > seperately, but that should then fit the terms. Actually, since the LGPL > was changed a few months ago, the infection principle is almost as strong > as in GPL (ie. loony RMS has broken the LGPL beyond repair).
Um, no. All LGPL2.1 does is to fix some typos, explicitly allow dynamically linking, and to rename from "Library" to "Lesser". And RMS is not a loony. He may have different axioms than you, but his arguments from those axioms are a good sight more well-reasoned than name calling. See <URL:http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/> for more details. I can't understand why some people dislike the GPL : it is only there to stop people exploiting the efforts of others in creating non-proprietary software by making proprietary derivatives. That is the right of the author of software. It is significantly less restrictive than proprietary software licenses, which typically don't allow redistribution at all! -- Robert who can't remember the last time he bought a license to use some proprietary software
