Re: License Stuff

[<bob thestuff net>]

Why do you feel angry when a software company uses your library? I for one
would feel a great deal of satisfaction if a big name company used a
library I wrote. Not every program needs to be free, it would be nice, but
doesnt need to happen. The OS needs to be free, but the apps will be in
constant compatition so some can remain propritary and still be forced to
be good apps. GPL is good. No denying that. But there are people out there
that cant use it (I've not been able to use it a copule of times, boss
issues. blah), and not supporting them is a shot in our own foot.

On 21 Oct 2000, Margus [ISO-8859-1] Väli wrote:

> 
> > 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>
> 
> 
> 
>