Well, the FSF itself uses the concept of weak: For example,
when describing WxWidgets:
Like the LGPL it is a weak copyleft license, so we recommend it only in
special circumstances.
So, at least according to https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html,
the FSF considers LGPL as weak
On 09/04/15 15:27, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Well, the FSF itself uses the concept of weak: For example,
when describing WxWidgets:
Like the LGPL it is a weak copyleft license, so we recommend it only in
special circumstances.
So, at least according to
Quoting Gervase Markham (g...@mozilla.org):
The normal definition of weak that I have seen is a copyleft whose
scope applies only to the code specifically licensed under it, e.g. the
MPLv2. The LGPL rather falls in between this definition of weak, and
the strong copyleft of the GPL.
This
Maybe we can summarize so far:
ULTRA-STRONG(AGPL)
STRONG (GPL)
MORE THAN WEAK (LGPL)
ALMOST WEAK (EPL)
WEAK(MPL)
VERY WEAK (APACHE)
ULTRA-WEAK (CC0)
This rather simple scale is not reflected in copyright law or any
Jim Jagielski scripsit:
So, at least according to
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html,
the FSF considers LGPL as weak copyleft.
Looking at the uses of 'weak' on that page suggests that to the FSF,
at least, a weak copyleft license is one that permits the licensed
work to be
5 matches
Mail list logo
