GPL or LGPL

Klaus Schilling Klaus.Schilling@munich.netsurf.de
Fri Feb 25 12:10:00 GMT 2000


Mark Galassi writes:

 > You can certainly use GSL internally; you just can't make a non-GPLed
 > product out of it.
 > 
Yeah, that's a very common misunderstanding.

 > You should certainly consider coming out with a GPLed product that
 > uses it: many companies make good revenue with GPLed products.
 > 
See http://www.cygnus.com , http://www.prosa.it , http://www.senga.org ,
http://www.idonex.se , http://www.id-pro.de ,  http://www.cendio.se ,
http://www.cyclic.com
I forgot the addy of R. Stallman's favourite Example, the Ada Core Team
of Robby Dewar.

 > We are not sympathetic to the argument "I really want to use your
 > library to make a proprietary product..."
 > 
Exactly! All software should finally ne free.
The Lesser GPL (or similar licenses like the one of guile) are
only to be thought as a temporary solution.

 > Your examples of institutions that have put out products under a
 > university-style license (like the X11 license or the new BSD license)
 > is not all that enlightening: the real lesson to me is that these
 > products (like Tk and X) have been frequently put into non-free
 > products.

Exactly. And particularly dangerous are licenses like those of
Mozilla, Qt or the non-free but open source Apple stuff, the latter
because it aims to extend the power of copyright beyond its common
boundaries.

Klaus Schilling


More information about the Gsl-discuss mailing list