Wow this topic is still going on. It seems clear if you want to use non-GPL licensed code then you require LGPL. If you want all your code to be public domain then use GPL. It seems pointless to keep telling someone to use GPL after reading the requirements with the other code they want to include.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Anthony <abasta...@gmail.com> wrote: > You're right, if you careful enough, you can separate the changes to the >> CMS code required by your application and release just them. But this is >> just one of the abusive tactics which GPL protects against. > > > I don't see how that is "abusive" if the license allows it. > > >> It is not possible to release a code that depends on GPL components under >> LGPL. You have to use GPL as an umbrella license. It's simpler to use GPL >> from the start in such a case. > > > I don't see how it is simpler to use GPL from the start. If you start with > GPL, then include a GPL'ed library in the project, the resulting combined > worked is released as GPL. On the other hand, if you start with LGPL, then > include a GPL'ed library in the project, the resulting combined work is > released as GPL. Same thing. Just as simple. Am I missing something? > > >> Unless you do that, you want be able to use code under many licenses >> compatible with GPL but not with LGPL, so there is more flexibility in what >> code you can include. > > > Once you're resigned to releasing the combined work as GPL, starting with > a GPL rather than LGPL library affords no additional flexibility regarding > what can be included. However, if you don't want to release the combined > work as GPL, starting with an LGPL library offers more flexibility, as it > at least makes that possible (assuming you include only LGPL-compatible > libraries in the project). > > Anthony > -- -- Regards, Bruce Wade http://ca.linkedin.com/in/brucelwade http://www.wadecybertech.com http://www.warplydesigned.com http://www.fitnessfriendsfinder.com
