Re: Software relicensing, how is it done ?

["Richard M. Stallman" <rms gnu org>]

       Basically, the glade core is intended to serve as a library to
    edit glade files, making the glade core available under LGPL
    in my understanding will allow people to use that library in a
    commercial IDE,

It would do that, and that seems like a good reason not to change the
license.  Currently Glade gives an advantage to free IDEs: only they
can use it.  We want free IDEs to replace proprietary IDEs, and Glade will
make this easier.

Would it really benefit our community to negate that advantage?  I
don't think so.

		    while modifying the core and redistributing it
    means that their modifications must also be distributed;

Yes and no.  The LGPL is not a strong copyleft.  If they change the
files they get from you, the LGPL will require them to release their
changed versions of those files.  But this will not stop proprietary
extensions to Glade.  They could change your code by adding calls to
subroutines located in their own new files, and not release the source
for those files.

This too would be a step backward.

    I love seeing it in Anjuta, I would love to see it all over the place :)

Wouldn't it be even better for free IDEs with Glade to replace the
proprietary IDEs?

As free software developers we naturally feel good to see our own
programs in wider use.  But what is really important is for free
software to replace proprietary software.  We can achieve more for
freedom if we focus on the deeper and more important long-term goal.