Werner Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Niels M�ller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > would be interesting to know about the considerations that led to
> > GMP-2.0 switching to LGPL. (lsh of course should be GPL:ed).
>
> I remember that I have read a comment from the FSF (in a Bulletin?),
> that the LGPL is to be considered a failed experiment.
This has been brought up on gnu.misc.discuss from time to time. If I
remember correctly, the source for this statement is the documentation
for an experimental automake feature (which among other things
complains if the project contains a COPYING.LIB file). As far as I
know, its *not* an official statement from the FSF or rms.
After some web-searching, I didn't find much information. But perhaps
this statement by rms is relevant:
PS: Strategic choices depend on the magnitude of various pros and
cons, and all sorts of details can affect them. Two analogous
situations can call for different strategies. That's why it is better
to use the GNU Library GPL for some libraries, and better to use the
ordinary GPL for other libraries, to limit them to free software only.
-- rms
(for context, see http://slashdot.org/features/9806080755240.shtml)
/Niels
