Debian and SqueakL revisited again...(was Re: Debian source package)
goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
goran.hultgren at bluefish.se
Tue Oct 30 18:26:28 UTC 2001
Hi guys!
"Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> "Lex Spoon" <lex at 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
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|