Bijan Parsia <bparsia at email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Lex Spoon wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> > 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.  :(
> 
> How about the misuse of the word "commercial". "Proprietory" ==
> "commerical". If you think that *de facto*, forbidding proprietoriness
> eliminates commerical potential, that's *still* a different thing.

I might have chosen a bad word initially - I should have used
"proprietary" or "closed source" since there is absolutely nothing in
GPL/LGPL that says anything about commerce, I used the wrong word. Heck,
I could sell a GPL program for 1000$ if someone is "stupid" enough to
pay for it.

The point I was (if I can rephrase it) trying to make is that GPL is
viral and LGPL is not (a bit simplified), which means that I can develop
a closed proprietary program that uses a LGPLd library and my code won't
"catch the GPL virus". What license I can then use for the resulting
executable (or the source of my app I guess) is totally up to me.

If I on the other hand modify the LGPLd library and redistributes the
modified version I would have to play by the LGPL rules which are quite
similar to GPL.

(Ok, there are tons of minor aspects here but I think this is the gist
of it)
 
> (Contrast with the VisualWorks Non-commercial licence, which *explicitly*
> forbids commerical activity. Rather generally. Last I checked, it looked
> like even non-profits got swept in.)
> 
> [snip]
> > Otherwise, LGPL and GPL are pretty similar, and perhaps even identical. 
> > For example, they both disallow commercial use of the software.
> 
> And this is even more bogas. At best, the only *use* that might be
> constraint is selling derivative works. Using a GPLed word processor to
> churn out commerical books is clearly fine on *any* level (even without
> the tendentioius connection to proprietoriness.

And again, selling is actually totally OK with GPL. :-) You can sell a
derivative work - it's just that you have to also distribute the source
- so it might be hard to get people to pay A LOT for it.

Yes... I see that you also note that below...

> To be explicit, from,
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLCommertially:
> 
> "If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am
> I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute
> and sell that new program commercially?
> You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but
> only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the
> source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL,
> and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the
> GPL."
> 
> Having a licence that, in a certain situation, makes using (or selling)
> the product commercially *infeasible* is very distinct from a licence that
> forbids commerical *use*.
> 
> But *please* let's not blow this up. :) I'm perfectly willing to concede
> that loads of buisness might not be able to sell GPLed software for a
> variety of reasons. But they certainly can use it in a variety of ways,
> and neither license explicitly forbids, in general, commerical use.
> 
> Terseness isn't the issue; accuracy is.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan Parsia.

Well, even if there are a bunch of interesting points with GPL/LGPL
(forcing contributions, levelling the playfield for commercial entities
etc) sometimes it just feels so much SIMPLER to go with a BSD/MIT style,
don't you think? :-)

Cheers too!

regards, Göran

PS. One interesting aspect mostly forgotten is the fact that quite a few
companies in the Linux arena seems to like the GPL since it sortof
levels the field. Company A can release improvements to the GPLd product
Z without running the risk of having company B grabbing it all closing
it up and selling it without openly contributing further. DS