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