Re: License Stuff

[Margus Väli <mvali hot ee>]

> However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like
> GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different color. The Readline library
> implements input editing and history for interactive
> programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere.
> Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives
> our community a real boost. At least one application
> program is free software today specifically because that was necessary
> for using Readline. 
> </snip>
> 
> This is the point I have brought up SEVERAL times and no one will
> directly address.  On GNU\Linux where is the non-free competition of
> libGDA/gnome-db that warrants doing LGPL over GPL????  Maybe it exists
> and I am not aware of it.

There is KDB (http://www.thekompany.com/projects/kdb) and it is under
LGPL,
 _but_ I'm not sure (what about Stallmann?) if KDE is considered free
from
 licence problems now that Qt-s has undergone radical change to (|L)GPL
so 
that it really offers competition (I still guess it does, so I bet LGPL
for
libgda). In the other hand, StarOffice has some kind of database
modularity with
their own type of component architecture that can be considered here,
and they
 will have bridges to bonobo in the future although this is definitely
going
to introduce performance issues, anyway, this might happen some day that
Sun programmers offer help with libgda to add Adabas providers for
example 
in case libgda is under either GPL or SCSSL(Sun Community software
source
 licence? - in short: which allows proprietary software that has
published only
the API and interfaces of the extensions to free libraries) or LGPL
which
is the lesser case anyway. I'm not an expert on the StarOffice issues
here though, but in this case we could do fine sticking with GPL.

With respect to <bob thestuff net> telling us he just wants more users, 
I see this as driving away from free software as LGPL-ing the stuff
encourages proprietary software ontop of this library instead of
promoting
the idea of free software in general.

regards,
mv


> 
> <snip>
> If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no
> parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of
> useful modules to serve as building blocks in new
> free programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free
> software development, and some projects will decide to make software
> free in order to use these libraries. University projects
> can easily be influenced; nowadays, as companies begin to consider
> making software free, even some commercial projects can be influenced in
> this way. 
> </snip>
> 
> This goes back to the philosphy I was describing above.
> 
> <snip>
> Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an
> important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute
> libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For
> example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this
> library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products.
> Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library
> developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that
> one library is what the community needs above all. 
> </snip>