Subject: Controversial opinion of ESR + my own comments about GPL vs. LGPL

From: Omer Zak <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 22:05:51 +0300

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/06/30/esr_interview.html titled
ESR: "We Don't Need the GPL Anymore"

Before your blood boils, read the responses to the interview.  Several
responders disagree with ESR's opinion.

If ESR were right, then the Unix world with its BSD-style licensing
would not have splintered into several incompatible factions in the
pre-Linux era.

It would have been more profitable to debate whether LGPL is better than
GPL.

LGPL allows proprietary software to continue to exist.  It only prevents
people from modifying and distributing modified Free Software not under
the terms of a Free Software license.  LGPL would have been powerful
enough to prevent Unix from splintering if Unix were licensed under
LGPL.

Note that LGPL requires proprietary software, which incorporates Free
Software modules, to make the Free Software parts replaceable by the
user (by making them separate modules, and/or by providing source code
and library files which allow them to be recompiled and re-linked with
the proprietary software).

GPL, on the other hand, tries to banish proprietary software.

I wonder whether the economic objectives of Free Software can be
accomplished by LGPL just as well as by GPL, and whether LGPL should
have been the preferred license by Open Source advocates (who do not
care about fighting evil proprietary software, and care only about the
pragmatic benfits of development models based upon Free Software).

DISCLAIMER:
I have been involved with some proprietary software projects, which used
a Free Software module licensed under LGPL.
                                                     --- Omer
-- 
Jara Cimerman!  He is one of the unsung geniuses--scientist, engineer,
inventor and literary critic.
My own blog is at http://www.livejournal.com/users/tddpirate/

My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone.
They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which
I may be affiliated in any way.
WARNING TO SPAMMERS:  at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html

---

From: "hasturkun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 23:18:58 -0000

(sorry if this is a duplicate, I seem to be having problems sending
to the list)

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 22:05:51 +0300
Omer Zak <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> It would have been more profitable to debate whether LGPL is better
> than GPL.

I do not think that would be fair, as IMHO they both have different
purposes.

> 
> LGPL allows proprietary software to continue to exist.  It only
> prevents people from modifying and distributing modified Free
> Software not under the terms of a Free Software license.  LGPL would
> have been powerful enough to prevent Unix from splintering if Unix
> were licensed under LGPL.

> GPL, on the other hand, tries to banish proprietary software.

I don't believe this is the case, what the GPL tries to do IMHO is to
prevent itself from becoming proprietary software, thus remaining 
free.

My using a GPL'd project does not prevent me from using or creating
proprietary software, even allowing me to freely use the output of 
same
as input or as code.

-- 
Tal Kelrich
PGP fingerprint: 3EDF FCC5 60BB 4729 AB2F  CAE6 FEC1 9AAC 12B9 AA69
Key Available at: http://www.hasturkun.com/pub.txt
----
Be careful when you bite into your hamburger. -- Derek Bok
----

---

From: Tal Kelrich <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 00:07:35 +0300

I don't believe this is the case, what the GPL tries to do IMHO is to
prevent itself from becoming proprietary software, thus remaining free.

My using a GPL'd project does not prevent me from using or creating
proprietary software, even allowing me to freely use the output of same
as input or as code.