----- Original Message -----
From: Vidar Hokstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Bradley D. LaRonde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: Request for comments - Microwindows
> On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 15:55:50 -0400 you wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Alex Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: Bradley D. LaRonde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 3:40 PM
> >Subject: Re: Request for comments - Microwindows
> >
> >
> >> On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Bradley D. LaRonde wrote:
> >> > This is an idea, but why? Doesn't MPL completely kill any GPL
benefit?
> >Why
> >> > would someone choose to use it under GPL when they can use it under
MPL?
> >>
> >> Because they want to borrow some of our code, but are stuck with code
> >> which is GPLed (you can't mix MPLed code in with GPLed code because of
the
> >> restrictive nature of the GPL).
> >
> >So why not use LGPL? IOW, why use MPL instead of LGPL?
>
> Because, as I've said multiple times now, the LGPL is too restrictive
> for a potentially large part of the people who would otherwise be
> interested in contributing and using this code.
But you have never said HOW LGPL is too restrictive. How is LGPL more
restrictive than MPL, and why is that significant to you?
> In an ideal world everyone would be able to accept open source code,
> but the world isn't ideal. It would limit our interest in this project
> dramatically if we would be limited from using third party code which
> we can't control licensing of because of license issues.
How is LGPL a problem with that?
> It would probably
> mean I'd be redirected to do my widget set development for another system
> for instance, or it might mean we'd have to fork the tree and keep working
> on a less restricted version.
Of course we don't want that to happen. But how will LGPL make that happen
and MPL prevent it?
Regards,
Brad
