Re: Using GPL for LibGTop with an exception for the GNOME Project

[Gleef <dzol virtual-yellow com>]

On 20 Feb 1999, Martin Baulig wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I've got a short question regarding GPL<->LGPL copyright issues:
> 
> Currently the copyright of LibGTop is LGPL as it was since the early
> beginning and if I understand things correctly it is required to use
> the LGPL for any library that is distributed together with GNOME.
> 
> However, after reading through the Gnome Mailing List Archive especially
> the "why it's wrong to use the LGPL" thread I wanted to ask you what you
> think about changing LibGTop's license to the GPL with a special (LGPL)
> exception for the GNOME project.

Hmm.  LibGTop doesn't have any analogous non-GNU version anywhere, so it
sounds like a prime candidate for GPL.  I have a few points.

First, to state the obvious, you can't revoke the LGPL from the 0.99 and
earlier versions of LibGTop.  Of course, some of the most important work
(i.e. ports to commercial platforms) is yet to come, and GPL'ing LibGTop
will keep all the new work under GPL only.

Secondly, GPL'ing LibGTop has a minor risk associated with it.  Imagine a
hypothetical OS, I'll call it FOOS.  FOOS is a very closed, proprietary
OS, in fact, the only published way of getting at system statistics is
through an add-on library, not shipped with the OS.  To get LibGTop
working on FOOS, you would have to either reverse engineer the hooks to
get the system statistics, or write the FOOS front-end to go through the
add-on library.  Without rereading the LGPL, I think it is much more
capable of handling such a situation gracefully than the GPL.


> This exception should make it possible to use LibGTop under the terms
> of the LGPL in the GNOME Project and for any (even commercial) GNOME
> application - but it should prevent commercial software writers from
> using LibGTop in commercial non-GNOME applications.

I think that such a GNOME loophole is big enough to drive the X11 source
code through :-).  It is trivial for a commercial application to touch a
single libgnome function, just to get through the loophole.

In addition, I don't think most applications _need_ access to LibGTop type
information, so GPLing it completely won't discourage proprietary
designers from contributing to GNOME.  It will allow GPL GNOME programs to
be slightly more feature rich than the competition without eliminating
such competition.


> What do you think about this ?

I think it should either be truly LGPL or truly GPL.  GPL with exceptions
just risks problems in the futures.  I like the thought of GPLing it, but
I don't see a major problem with keeping it LGPL either.


-Gleef