This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the pthreas-win32 project.
changing pthreads-win32 license
- From: "Alexander Terekhov" <TEREKHOV at de dot ibm dot com>
- To: pthreads-win32 at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:58:11 +0200
- Subject: changing pthreads-win32 license
Ross Johnson wrote:
> But, before guessing, I have to ask you what your issue is
> exactly with the LGPL.
My issue with [L]GPL is that FSF "advocates" totally idiotic
("SCOish" so to speak) notion of "derivative work", to begin
with. This is just one example:
"Subclassing is creating a derivative work. Therefore, the
terms of the GPL affect the whole program where you create
a subclass of a GPL'ed class. "
Of course, this doesn't make sense and is totally wrong. The
real problem with [L]GPL is that both try to go "way too far"
with the reciprocity provision (quote taken from LGPL, emphasis
added): "the intent is to exercise the right to control the
distribution of derivative or COLLECTIVE works based on the
Library". This is what people call "viral effect". Even folks
like creativecommons.org DON'T TRY TO DO THAT.
The problems with [L]GPL are nicely illustrated here:
and also here:
Now, as for *L*GPL silliness, just read this:
> And especially which license you'd prefer to use.
The CPL, of course.
I like this:
"The Lesser GPL used to be called the Library GPL. For
historical reasons this license still refers to the software
application as "the Library" which can be confusing for
licensees. Also, a licensee is allowed to convert the Lesser
GPL to a full GPL, after which their enhancements could not
be incorporated back into our version of the software. So,
for us, LGPL is out. "
Please read this:
> There have been a few expressions of interest in changing to
> another license, such as the BSD license.
Fine with me. Just take the CPL and remove the reciprocity
"Reciprocal and non-reciprocal open source licenses ought to
be the same -- except with respect to provisions dealing with
Well, I'd have no real problems with the AFL/OSL either, but
to me, the CPL is better. I like the language/style, to begin
> In order to change, I think a concensus of [at least] the major
> project contributors would be required.
I think that all contributors will have to agree to license
their contributions under the new terms in order to change the
> It's certainly not up to me.
I understand. That's why I'm replying to the list.