Hi guys!
"Lex Spoon" lex@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
"Lex Spoon" lex@cc.gatech.edu wrote:
So again, my view is that given a speicific situation I would probably choose between these:
- GPL (perhaps without the "version 2 or higher" in case RMS looses it
even more... :-) If I want my program not to be turned commercial by someone else
- LGPL if I feel that GPL does a good job, but I want to enable people
to use it commercially
These are not correct. Perhaps let's not open this discussion here
Okay, I was a bit terse, and it *is* relevant. I just didn't relish the thought of the inevitable 50+ messages hashing out the subtle differences between these licenses. :(
Sure! I agree with that.
One thing I know is that LGPL allows linking with non-LGPL programs, but GPL does not. It's a good thing that GNU libc (the one that Linux uses) is LGPL, because if it was GPL it would be illegal to compile non-GNU C programs on Linux! It's unclear where Squeak images would fall here -- is loading Smalltalk code into Squeak "linking", or is it making a derivative of the base image? Blah, let's be happy we're not using one of these licenses and so don't have to decide. :)
The question on how the image works in this is very much open I guess.
Otherwise, LGPL and GPL are pretty similar, and perhaps even identical. For example, they both disallow commercial use of the software.
Nope, I believe YOU are wrong regarding this last sentence actually.
I can use an LGPL-d library in my next proprietary killer app. That is the whole point with LGPL - see perhaps best explained here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
This was my original point!
Here's an official site about the GNU licenses:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html
I dunno about the other open source licenses. Some of them do allow commercial use, however.
Yes, especially the BSD and the MIT license.
Sidenote - two other things people wrongly tend to believe:
1. You are forbidden to charge money for GPLd software. (Answer: You can charge how much you want but people will probably buy it cheaper from someone else then since everybody/anybody can redistribute...)
2. If you have release software that you have the copyright to as GPL you can not make any money from it. (Answer: Yes you can - just issue another license! Dual licensing is more and more common, see Mozilla and Qt as prime examples.)
-Lex
regards, Göran
On Tuesday, October 30, 2001, at 01:26 PM, goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
One thing I know is that LGPL allows linking with non-LGPL programs, but GPL does not. It's a good thing that GNU libc (the one that Linux uses) is LGPL, because if it was GPL it would be illegal to compile non-GNU C programs on Linux! It's unclear where Squeak images would fall here -- is loading Smalltalk code into Squeak "linking", or is it making a derivative of the base image? Blah, let's be happy we're not using one of these licenses and so don't have to decide. :)
The question on how the image works in this is very much open I guess.
Not open in practice, given RMS' construction of the GPL. GPL's interaction with a monolithic image is completely viral in his view.
Indeed, one could theoretically litigate the "open" question, at great cost and expense. The upside of being right is you get to use the software for free. The downside of being wrong is you are liable under the Copyright Act for actual damages, statutory damages (from $500 to $50K, within the jury's unreviewable discretion), penalties for willful damages, perhaps (up to $100K, within the judge or jury's discretion), and significantly, an award of attorney fees.
One would be insane to risk litigating that issue merely because it is "very much open," given that the cost of licensing comparable software is tiny compared to the liability downside, even discounted by the reasonable expectation of success.
One thing I know is that LGPL allows linking with non-LGPL programs, but GPL does not. It's a good thing that GNU libc (the one that Linux uses) is LGPL, because if it was GPL it would be illegal to compile non-GNU C programs on Linux! It's unclear where Squeak images would fall here -- is loading Smalltalk code into Squeak "linking", or is it making a derivative of the base image? Blah, let's be happy we're not using one of these licenses and so don't have to decide. :)
The question on how the image works in this is very much open I guess.
Otherwise, LGPL and GPL are pretty similar, and perhaps even identical. For example, they both disallow commercial use of the software.
Nope, I believe YOU are wrong regarding this last sentence actually.
Yeah, I sure bungled that one! To try again, they *equally* *inconvience* commercial use of the software, except regarding linking.
-Lex
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org