Re: License Stuff

["Derek A. Neighbors" <derek gnue org>]

Rodrigo,

> > The this is _not_ possible now a days is a _false_ statement.  I wont go
> > into a license holy war.  I will say that if you _MUST_ dirty this
> > project by doing it as LGPL please dual license as GPL/LGPL to at least
> > show that you dont devalue the GPL but rather feel some "commercial"
> > need to be accepted.
> >
> 
> Derek, I understand your concern about GPL/LGPL issues, but what I don't
> see is why does having LGPL dirty the project? As I said, I'm not an expert
> on license issues, so I may be missing something....

It is 'dirty' because now prop programs can use it.  That was probably a
harsh statement.  So please ignore the negative connotation behind it. 
It wasnt intended to mean choosing it makes the project unusable or
anything.

Here is a link to my stance.  I am going to do some cutting and pasting
of it with comments, but here it is in its entirety for those wishing
full context. ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html )

<snip>
The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is
the GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of
license makes a big difference: using the
Library GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using
the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free
programs. 
</snip>

That in a nut shell is the difference.

<snip>
Which license is best for a given library is a matter of strategy, and
it depends on the details of the situation. At present, most GNU
libraries are covered by the Library GPL, and that means
we are using only one of these two strategies, neglecting the other. So
we are now seeking more libraries to release under the ordinary GPL. 
</snip>

Here is a call to please not use the LGPL unless completely warranted.

<snip>
Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free
software developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the
ordinary GPL for a library gives free software
developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they
can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it. 
</snip>

Maybe this is a philosphy, but while some people say making LGPL gets it
in more users hands, is it really good if that means more prop vendors
hands???  I think the thought is if you have something out there that
can compete or is unique keep it free... It will force others wishing to
share in its success to make their stuff free or to go through the pain
of making their own to stifle others freedoms.

<snip>
Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are
reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases.
The most common case is when a free library's
features are readily available for proprietary software through other
alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free
software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the
Library GPL for that library. 

This is why we used the Library GPL for the GNU C library. After all,
there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have
driven proprietary software developers to use
another--no problem for them, only for us. 

However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like
GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different color. The Readline library
implements input editing and history for interactive
programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere.
Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives
our community a real boost. At least one application
program is free software today specifically because that was necessary
for using Readline. 
</snip>

This is the point I have brought up SEVERAL times and no one will
directly address.  On GNU\Linux where is the non-free competition of
libGDA/gnome-db that warrants doing LGPL over GPL????  Maybe it exists
and I am not aware of it.

<snip>
If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no
parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of
useful modules to serve as building blocks in new
free programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free
software development, and some projects will decide to make software
free in order to use these libraries. University projects
can easily be influenced; nowadays, as companies begin to consider
making software free, even some commercial projects can be influenced in
this way. 
</snip>

This goes back to the philosphy I was describing above.

<snip>
Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an
important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute
libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For
example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this
library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products.
Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library
developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that
one library is what the community needs above all. 
</snip>

At this time the ONLY reason I have heard this list say to do LGPL is
because they feel it gives them more users and popularity.  (Even our
own Reinhard) <-- Time to put you in the time out box. ;)

<snip>
But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve
much more if we stand together. We free software developers should
support one another. By releasing libraries that are
limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software
packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software
movement will have more popularity, because free
software as a whole will stack up better against the competition. 
</snip>

This is VERY true.  One reason we were drawn to libGDA/Gnome-db was that
it was GPL.  We looked forward to being able to help a "free software"
brother grow and develop in our journey. 

<snip>
Since the name "Library GPL" conveys the wrong idea about this question,
we are planning to change the name to "Lesser GPL." Actually
implementing the name change may take some time,
but you don't have to wait--you can release GPL-covered libraries now. 
</snip>

Of course this is a final word that says a lot and as in our talks some
people have said they call it "lesser" for a reason.


BTW: Before you flame for the above... I said I did not want a license
holy war.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I only responded
because I was asked directly by Rodrigo and was going to just reply to
him directly rather than fill the list with license debates.  I did not
as I figured that would not be fair for others to have the ability to
refute the points and give Rodrigo a full spectrum of views coming from
people on this project.

Derek Neighbors
GNU Enterprise
http://www.gnue.org
derek gnue org