Re: GPL or LGPL ?

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo linuxave net>]

Derek Neighbors wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> I certain hope you stay hardlined on this issue and remain GPL only and
> dont go the route so many do in doing LGPL.
> 
> > I noted in the gnome-db web pages that gnome-db is licensed under
> > GPL (*), wich unlike the LGPL, will prevent the use of this libs in closed
> > or home-made apps ...
> >
> > is this has been discussed, please point me to the archives, if not
> > can I ask the motives ?
> 
> RMS has a lot to say on this subject directly.
> 
> http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
> 
> I think the key factor is currently to my knowledge this is the only
> library of its kind for Linux.  This gives Free software a very good
> advantage by only releasing as GPL.  As companies wanting to use it in
> non-gpl compatiable works will be forced to change their licensing or to
> roll their own.
> 
> In the case of gtk/gnome qt/kde had a head start, so it probably made more
> sense to use the lgpl to encourage people away from qt/kde, but I think
> gnome-db finds themselves in a different library situation. :)
> 
> I could go on for days. :)  Its called the "lesser" GPL for a reason. :)
> 
Yes, you are right, I haven't thought about this, but isn't it better to
let commercial applications to be developed with gnome-db? What do you
think?