Anthony, On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:03:44PM -0800, Anthony Green wrote: > On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 07:16 -0800, Leo Simons wrote: > > I didn't take notes but one of the many things I took away from this is > > that it might > > be a real good idea to try and see if classpath can be LGPLed; Mark seemed > > to think > > that is not an unattainable goal. When I get my hands on some spare time (I > > hope it'll > > be under the christmas tree) I hope to push forward om some of that. > > I don't understand this.
I don't fully understand it either. > The GNU Classpath license was designed to be > even more liberal than the LGPL. What makes relicensing GNU Classpath > to LGPL a good idea? It looks like it might be a step on a path to having hundreds of developers who are part of the GNU community working with hundreds of developers who are part of the ASF community. It looks like such a step a little more than the GPL+Exception license does. I think that's primarily because the various legal properties of the LGPL are apparently better understood (or liked) by a large variety of legal people than the GPL+Exception license. (...) I don't pretend to understand what drives most people who prefer "free software" to "open source" or the other way around. I have never cared very much about copyleft or copyright or "software freedoms". Can't get worked up about it. I care about "real life freedoms", such as "freedom of speech" or "freedom to have at least one proper meal a day". Anyway, the "freedom" I keep looking for is "the freedom to all work together on cool code without worrying about licensing". If lots of people are less worried about the LGPL than about other licenses, then that means the LGPL is, in my world view, a nice license. It would probably be best to try and make those worried people worry less about the GPL+Exception, but that seems like a very hard thing to do. I hope the above made sense... - LSD
