Re: [License-discuss] Strong and weak copyleft
Well, the FSF itself uses the concept of weak: For example, when describing WxWidgets: Like the LGPL it is a weak copyleft license, so we recommend it only in special circumstances. So, at least according to https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html, the FSF considers LGPL as weak copyleft. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Strong and weak copyleft
On 09/04/15 15:27, Jim Jagielski wrote: Well, the FSF itself uses the concept of weak: For example, when describing WxWidgets: Like the LGPL it is a weak copyleft license, so we recommend it only in special circumstances. So, at least according to https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html, the FSF considers LGPL as weak copyleft. One occasionally wonders if the FSF doesn't consider the GPLv2 to be a weak copyleft ;-) The normal definition of weak that I have seen is a copyleft whose scope applies only to the code specifically licensed under it, e.g. the MPLv2. The LGPL rather falls in between this definition of weak, and the strong copyleft of the GPL. Gerv ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Strong and weak copyleft
Quoting Gervase Markham (g...@mozilla.org): The normal definition of weak that I have seen is a copyleft whose scope applies only to the code specifically licensed under it, e.g. the MPLv2. The LGPL rather falls in between this definition of weak, and the strong copyleft of the GPL. This matches my understanding of the term, FWIW. My recollection is that MPL is the canonical example about which the term was coined. -- Cheers, I'm ashamed at how often I use a thesaurus. I mean bashful. Rick MoenEmbarrassed! Wait--humiliated. Repentant. Chagrined! Sh*t! r...@linuxmafia.com-- @cinemasins McQ! (4x80) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Strong and weak copyleft
Maybe we can summarize so far: ULTRA-STRONG(AGPL) STRONG (GPL) MORE THAN WEAK (LGPL) ALMOST WEAK (EPL) WEAK(MPL) VERY WEAK (APACHE) ULTRA-WEAK (CC0) This rather simple scale is not reflected in copyright law or any relevant cases. It is not part of the Free Software Guidelines or the Open Source Definition. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to the definition of derivative work. It is based here in this thread on obscure quotes from various websites or opinions about license author's intent without quoting the actual provisions of the licenses that enable these vague distinctions. This is one of the issues raised by the VMware complaint in Germany, and we're expecting a court to make a decision about how strong the GPL is. This email thread is still not very helpful. /Larry ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Strong and weak copyleft
Jim Jagielski scripsit: So, at least according to https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html, the FSF considers LGPL as weak copyleft. Looking at the uses of 'weak' on that page suggests that to the FSF, at least, a weak copyleft license is one that permits the licensed work to be incorporated in a larger proprietary work, whereas a strong copyleft license does not (at least in the FSF's opinion). This seems an appropriate distinction for general use. Neither of these should be confused with Grave and Perilous Licenses. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowanco...@ccil.org No, John. I want formats that are actually useful, rather than over- featured megaliths that address all questions by piling on ridiculous internal links in forms which are hideously over-complex. --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
