Tugger the SLUGger!SLUG Mailing List Archives

Re: [chat] LGPL license w/o GPL infection


begin Catie Flick quotation:

> > Heh, no need for apology; you've hit the nail on the head - it's bad enough
> > that people hoping to defame the community's choice of licenses use words
> > like that... It's a real worry when we start saying them ourselves.
> 
> Just because we don't like the FSF's motives doesn't make us bad people.

It's nowt to do with the FSF.

> "The community's choice of licenses" doesn't solely contain the GPL and
> LGPL.

Which is one of the reasons why it's nowt to do with the FSF. (At which
point did I mention the FSF? The community has many licenses to choose
from.)

> It certainly doesn't put those who dislike the GPL and what the FSF stand
> for "out of the community". I don't know if you were trolling or not,
> Jeff, but if you were, consider me trolled :)

We have a large selection of licenses, many of which have been attacked
recently in an effort to defame Free Software. We choose different Free
Software licenses for different reasons; they're all Free Software in the
end. I don't understand your take on this.

> Andre, don't feel socially obliged to release your code under the GPL. I
> certainly don't (nor do many highly regarded OS people), because I don't
> like moral stances imposed on me by people who think they know better.

We're talking about LGPL-like licenses, not the GPL.

No one is obliged or imposed upon by choosing to use or release software
under the GPL or LGPL. *You* as the author of your software choose the
license, and code to use.

Andre mentioned that he specifically wanted some of the features that have
been described as 'viral'; ie. continuing the freedom to modify and
distribute his code under his terms.

My advice here is that the LGPL may indeed fit - if the users of the library
are willing to deal with the extra details that may involve.

> I don't like moral stances imposed on me by people who think they know
> better

Heh. They're out to get us! They're controlling our minds! You don't have to
use the license. There is no imposition. You don't have to transfer
copyright. There is no obligation. Who is this mysterious "they", forcing
their license on you?

If you prefer different licenses for the software that you release or
contribute to, that's your right as author and contributor. No one is taking
that away from you.

In the end, we're talking about Free Software licenses. There's no reason to
be so horribly critical and unkind about these choices - they're all "on the
same side".

- ii

-- 
  Penguinillas Pack GNUzis