date:20080720

Re: LGPL vs. GPL

2008-07-20 Thread Ciaran O'Riordan

Encouraging contributions isn't usually a motivation to switch to LGPL. The
writers of proprietary software will generally keep the most useful
functionality in their application code (rather than in your library) and
will contribute as little as possible.

A permissive licence (such as the LGPL) can be good if you want your
application to define an open standard. For example, the Ogg Vorbis library
for playing that audio format is under a very permissive licence because the
goal is to make Ogg a widely used standard (so that free software developers
can work with an open, patent-free standard instead of the possibly patented
mp3 format).

The LGPL can also be good if you think that your field will naturally be
dominated by a single software package and you think you might loose a
head-to-head competition with some proprietary rival. This is the case for
the GNU standard C library (glibc). It makes technical sense for all
GNU/Linux operating systems to use the same libc, and if the developers of
proprietary software for GNU/Linux wanted to write their own libc, they
probably could. So to ensure that they don't feel a need to do that, glibc
was released under the LGPL.

So unless you find yourself in either of those rare situations, then it's
probably best to stay with the GPL.

You've probably read this, but just in case:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

Hope that helps.

P.S. This mailing list has lots of trolls. Please ignore inflammatory
emails.
--
Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 477 36 44 19, http://ciaran.compsoc.com/

Support free software, join FSFE's Fellowship: http://fsfe.org

Recent blog entries:

http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/using_latex_to_make_pdf_documents_with_japanese_characters
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/links_sean_daly_kde_swpat_chessboxing
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/links_india_pats_clipperz_freegis_rms_emacs
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/using_and_writing_emacs_22_input_methods

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

2008-07-20 Thread rjack


Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
In the last three years, Moglen and Ravicher together have received over 
$1,000,000 in compensation from public charitable contributions as S.F.L.C. 
officers.


Good for them!  I hope they get more.

I know enough about causation to conclude that this will cause pockets to 
grow fat.


Ah, now we know why you are so passionated about this, you are simply jealous
 and cannot tolerate others getting lots of cash.  So instead of being 
productive, and I dunno... work for a living; you troll from the basement of

 your parents house.

Cheers!


Hey! No jealousy here Alfred! Grab the money and run!

Just make sure there's no grease under the fingernails on the hand that grabs
the money. It is the hypocrisy factor that I object to. You "Free Software"
folks would like the world to believe that the S.F.L.C. is staffed full of
dedicated pro bono folks saving the world from capitalism. To wit:

“SFLC provides pro bono legal services to non-profit Free and Open Source
Software developers and also helps the general public better understand the
legal aspects of Free and Open Source Software.”
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061215131844340&query=pro+bono

The term “pro bono” is used to describe professional work undertaken voluntarily
and without payment as a public service. The socialist "Free Software" agenda
includes lining its advocates pockets just like any other for-profit (think
Microsoft) lobbying effort.

Sincerely,
Rjack


-- The hardest part of fleecing a sucker is convincing him to show his gratitude
for getting screwed --








___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

39 matches

Mail list logo