Women in Technology

Article:		ESR: "We Don't Need the GPL Anymore"
Subject:		They overlook a worse aspect of the GPL.
Date:		2005-07-01 11:03:57
From:		grint
They're discussing the effects of "copyleft" on closed-source developers, but like every other discussion of this I've seen, they fail to mention that the GPL unnecessarily applies also to other open-source developers. There is no good reason I've heard why the GPL (version 3, at least) shouldn't make an exception for other open source to at least allow a GPL'd property like the "readline" library, to be linked into programs with non-GPL open source software like something BSD-licensed, without requiring "the whole" to be licensed under terms like the GPL's. Now, I know that some (maybe RMS) say there's no problem putting the whole under GPL, even if parts are BSDL'd, but others, like me, disagree, and that inhibits the progress of open source development.

Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.

• They overlook a worse aspect of the GPL.
  2005-07-01 14:12:00  j85wilson [View]
  
  
  Hence the LGPL, at least as I understand it.

• They overlook a worse aspect of the GPL.
  2005-07-02 18:50:35  cubrewer [View]
  
  

  This limitation on the freedom of developers is the explicit intention of RMS. It is discussed in relation to the LGPL .. the gist is "Please do not use the LGPL. We (RMS and the FSF) prefer you the GPL like our readline library in order to force the GPL on projects" (go google "Why you shouldn't use the LGPL").

  
  
  

  I guess if you're a fan of the GPL "virality" then this is a great idea... and if not, then not.