Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: antiRepublicrat

LGPL isn't GPL, isn't viral, and zealots don't typically if ever use it. They use GPL, just as Stallman prefers. I don't see the need for all your silly licenses anyway, if you really wanted to give it away you'd just make it public domain, no catches, no gimmicks though, so obviously you won't ever use that.


27 posted on 04/11/2006 7:31:37 AM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: Golden Eagle
LGPL isn't GPL, isn't viral

If you change LGPL code and attempt to redistribute it guess what you have to release? thats right you have to release the changes. The only thing significantly different about the LGPL is that the issue of file linking is set whereas in the GPL its not. And both licenses are written by stallman.

I don't see the need for all your silly licenses anyway, if you really wanted to give it away you'd just make it public domain

Sometimes I might be inclined but its not up to you, or me to tell people what to do with their IP is it?

31 posted on 04/11/2006 7:48:46 AM PDT by N3WBI3 (If SCO wants to go fishing they should buy a permit and find a lake like the rest of us..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

To: Golden Eagle
LGPL isn't GPL

No, it's a derivitave of the GPL, authored by the FSF. Yet you don't seem to hate it. Strange.

isn't viral

Go ahead, modify an LGPL program and redistribute it without also giving out the source for your modifications, and you'll find out exactly how "viral" it is as you violate the copyright of the author. The only meaningful difference between the licenses is that the LGPL specifically states linking is allowed, where the GPL relies on the interpretation of the author.

I don't see the need for all your silly licenses anyway, if you really wanted to give it away you'd just make it public domain

The capitalist system doesn't work on just giving stuff away, and neither does most open source. If you want to be able to modify and redistribute proprietary programs, you pay for the license with money. If you want to be able to modify and redistribute open source programs, you pay for the license by giving your improvements back to the author. In either case, valuable consideration is given to the author in exchange for certain rights.

Choice is nice. Don't have a few hundred grand to pay Microsoft for a development and distribution license for Windows CE? No problem, use Linux and pay in code instead.

34 posted on 04/11/2006 7:57:50 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson