On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:11:51 -0700, Brett Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 07:34 AM 2/8/2002, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > >>Could you have finished wiht a more dumb line? LGPL _is_ open source my >>friend, > >This is not what Richard Stallman and Bradley Kuhn of the FSF say. They >say, most emphatically, that it is NOT Open Source. > >And they are, in this case, correct. The GPL and LGPL violate the >Open Source Definition, because they discriminate against a >field of endeavor (the production of commercial software) and against >a group of people (programmers who produce commercial software). > >Anyone can use (L)GPLed code in the way that benefits him or her >the most... EXCEPT the commercial programmer, who cannot use the >code in his or her work, study it to learn from it, fix a bug in >it, or even look at it without risking his or her livelihood (for >the reasons described in my earlier message). > >This is not irrelevant -- it's vitally important. Many of the people >who use and contribute to WINE would be hurt by the (L)GPL's "poison >pill," while the project would not benefit from it. > >--Brett Glass Seems to me that contributers should have most of the say.... john alvord
