Hi,
Amusingly I thought I was defending the LGPL ... Lets see if I have
your main points correct
Apache software is not necessarily free (as in beer) ... much like the GNU
software.
Apache software is not necessarily free (as in speech), despite the fact the
FSF who virtually invented the term, classify it as free. The reason ? It
gives users more freedom to choose how to use it and the users may be evil.
Worse these users may force Apache to compete on quality of software ...
competition drives innovation and is responsible for progress. I can't see
how this could be bad. Besides the cost of competing with Apache in its core
products (httpd/php/some java/xml producst) would be considerable I think ...
far more than users are willing to pay for. Thus these forks would die in
long term - standard marketplace rules still operate.
ASF may turn evil boogyman argument ... and the sky may fall tomorrow.
Luckily its status as a non-profit organisation + having international
members + the opinion of members + charter makes it a practical
impossibility. But then again, given sufficient thrust pigs fly, right?
I don't think ASF license is revocable which means that code is free, always
Free. Someone could take it and repackage/modify it under another license but
this does not stop the original version from keeping its Free license.
However you seem to claim that you should get access to all future versions
and modifications for it to be free???
Oh and by far the best part was the following...
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:32, Alex Fernández wrote:
> That looks like a challenge. Let's see: Your sentence (and I quote)
> 'Hey - I don't much like copyleft anymore either and I am all for money
> making off OSS',
> in response to Jon Stevens'
> 'I'm in the business to make money off of Open Source. I believe in
> Open, not Free'
> both seem to imply that you cannot make money off Free (or, in your
> case, copylefted) software. Which is untrue. Now, my Webster says that
> misleading is 'that leads in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action
> or belief'; I think this piece qualifies.
Premise: Jon: I like pies. I like red apples, not green apples.
Premise: Pete: I don't like green apples. I like like pies.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Alex: You can't use green apples to make pies.
As you can see the argument is completely and utterly flawed (and I hope I
would never fall into such an amateur arrangement). So what you believe I
seem to imply is largely an artefact of your own imagination ;)
I actually don't mind the LGPL and would probably use it except for a few
flaws;
* relinking clause is near impossible for embedded apps
* allows it to "promoted" to GPL (someone did this to my stuff in the past,
as a way to block me from using his few minor changes)
* common banner allows upgraded to future LGPLs and thus the power rests with
RMS to define how my code is licensed
* deliberate confusion between use/modification so that it can be
"interpreted" on case by case basis (thus potentially allowing RMS or other
arbitrators to enforce their politics)
Remember the GPL and LGPL was created to serve one purpose. Have a look at
GNU manifesto and then at MS tactics ... see similarities? The licenses are
thus loaded for this situation and I don't relish choice being removed from
me, regardless of whether it is MS or a "benevolent" FSF.
--
Cheers,
Pete
*----------------------------------------------------------*
The phrase "computer literate user" really means the person
has been hurt so many times that the scar tissue is thick
enough so he no longer feels the pain.
-- Alan Cooper, The Inmates are Running the Asylum
*----------------------------------------------------------*
