This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GSL project.
GPL or LGPL
- To: Adrian Feiguin <feiguin at magnet dot fsu dot edu>
- Subject: GPL or LGPL
- From: Klaus Schilling <Klaus dot Schilling at munich dot netsurf dot de>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 07:50:08 +0100 (CET)
- Cc: gsl-discuss at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <Pine.GSO.email@example.com>
- Reply-To: Klaus dot Schilling at munich dot netsurf dot de
Adrian Feiguin writes:
> Hi. The GSL called my attention and I must say that it's an outstanding
> library. I've been looking for something like this to link to my
> application: a Microcal Origin clone, a program for scientific graphics.
> However, I'm not sure yet if my program will be released under GPL,
> although it will be open source. In that case I wouldn't be able to link
> to gsl.
> IMHO, I personally believe that libraries must be released under a less
> restrictive license, like LGPL, that allows to link dynamically to them,
> without forcing to use the GPL/LGPL for your code. I released libraries
> myself under LGPL and I think that that's the right choice (even though my
> libraries are being used for commercial applications -Applixware)
No, the GNU GPL is the right choice for the GNU Scientific Library,
because the GSL is not a replacement for an existing non-copylefted
library. If it were, the GNU LGPL would be better. This has been
expressed several times by Richard M. Stallman on
Forcing people to apply the GNU GPL to their derived code as far as
possible is the way to go. The LGPL is used too much in occasions
where the GPL should be used.