> 	Uhm, the GPL is pretty simple, and I don't understand the hatred for it.

If this is a sincere request, then consider these three lines from your
post:



> 	If ProgA is LGPL, and progB is GPL, then progA+B can not be distributed ( 
> LGPL and GPL differ ).

Notice that even different varieties of GNU code ofen cannot work
together.  Imagine how bad it is trying to combine a GNU license with a
*non* GNU license!  People often try to combine software from different
sources, and GNU doesn't make this especially easy.



> 	This only comes up in the complex Morass of propietary licensing, where A 
> specifies one thing, B specifies another, and C another, and what happens if 
> you want to use code from all 3? 

In fact, the main GNU go out of their way to make mixing difficult: they
treat combination the same way as modification.  LGPL is better, but its
notion of combination seems to be extremely narrow.


> 	GPL when you get down to it, is just a 'play nice clause'.

Then, to really rub it in, people will say something like this.  Grr, 
beating people down and then telling them it's for their own good!


-Lex