Can you be free and non-copyleft at the same time?

[Wayne Schuller <w schuller gpph unimelb edu au>]

hi all,

>Maybe there should be a licence between the LGPL and the GPL that
>allows free software to link to it only; ie if the license is anything
>up to as loose as BSD.  Then somehow make it a license violation to
>make the linked code non-free.

No the whole point is that the BSD licence isn't good enough. If it's not
copylefted, how can it really be free?

I think this is why Miguel posted examples of the abuse that happens to the
BSD/X licenses because they are not copylefted (ie: free).

BSD people are very nice, but if they want to license there system in a
non-free way which opens them to exploitation, why should free projects
such as ours bend over backwards to support them?  We honestly don't need
them (or proprietry vendors)... the goal is to get a fully GPL'ed desktop
enviroment.  The only question now is how many years (or less) do we leave
everything LGPLed before it moves over to GPL?

ta,
wayne.
ps: sorry this is getting way of topic... everyone go read the articles on
www.gnu.org etc
---------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Schuller - BSc. (Computer Science) Network Administrator
Centre for Health Program Evaluation - Austin Repat Hospital - Heidelberg.
Web: http://ariel.unimelb.edu.au/chpe/  My phone: (03) 94964448 
w.schuller@gpph.unimelb.edu.au