[kaffe] LGPL vs. GPL-with-exception

[Doug Porter]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:11:57 -0800, "Casey Marshall"
<rsdio@metastatic.org> said:

> Doug> Once you do more than link, the
> Doug> exception doesn't help.
> 
> Neither does the LGPL.

Maybe not, but I'm still greatly reassured by LGPL's explicit statement
that my work isn't magically a derivative work. ;)

> Doug> And the GPL is, intentionally, not very friendly to people who
> Doug> do commercial software.
> 
> You mean "proprietary software".

Nope, I meant commercial. And yes, I'm aware that GNU approves certain
restricted (Let the flames begin!) commercial activities. The GPL isn't
friendly to what the rest of the work calls commercial software.

> NO FREE SOFTWARE LICENSE EVER TRANSFERS OWNERSHIP.

But, a nagging voice asks, why does the LGPL have its explicit disclaimer
about derivative works? The GPL doesn't have that disclaimer. Instead all
it has is Section 2, as you say. Section 2 is not enough for commercial
software. That's why LGPL and GPL-with-exception were created.

And BTW, any reason the GNU page on licenses doesn't appear to mention
GPL-with-exception?

> Doug> And after all, LGPL is still an open source license.
> 
> The LGPL is a free software license.

Good grief.

My intent was never to start a traditional license flame war. I won't
continue this one.

If someone is comfortable with GPL-with-exception, that's fine. I
accomodated a request that I give my reasons for strongly believing LGPL
is better.

With free/open source software, we all have a choice.

Doug
-- 
  Doug Porter
  dougporter@fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - I mean, what is it about a decent email service?