Jeroen, I tried being diplomatic, but you missed my point. Now I'll try blunt. Drop it. If we find ourselves in need of using GPL'd code then we can wrap that code into a ahared library module and dynamically link to it after the fact. According to the GPL this is perfectly legal since the LGPL is GPL compatible.There are solutions to the problems you pose other than changing the licensing. We can worry about licenses *AFTER* we get to the point where we're ready to do a public release.
R. King ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeroen Dekkers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 4:02 PM Subject: Re: [plex86] new subject (we all agree the list sucks) > On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 04:56:01PM -0400, Eric Laberge wrote: > > If I recall, LGPL was chosen to allow 3rd companies to write custom or > > proprietary plugins for Plex86, or to do internal device/driver > > development. It is one of the strength of open emulation/virtualisation. > > > > By forcing these people to comply with the GPL, which wouldn't allow > > linking these proprietary plugins, we'd loose a major market share which > > could be quite helpful for new development. > > But what's more useful: Some GPL'd code we can use or those non-free > modules? > > Jeroen Dekkers > -- > Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org > IRC: jeroen@openprojects
