Re: [cairo] Pango License

[Ineiev <ineiev gmail com>]

On 12/17/10, Bill Spitzak <spitzak gmail com> wrote:
> I think I am not explaining this clearly.

I hope so.

> I personally have put such an exception on an previously LGPL
> library I was developing (FLTK) because it greatly increased the
> number of users and testers. It was a HUGE win for getting the
> library working and popular! Nobody used it before this change.

I'm sorry, I don't see your point.

You mention GNU/Linux distributions, let us look at some of the most
popular ones.

The exceptions were added to FLTK license in May 2001.

Debian included it since 1999 (and discussed in 1998).
Gentoo supplied it since Dec 2000.
Fedora added it in 2009, which is probably too long after the change
to be considered as a doubtless result.

> This has NOTHING to do with developers of proprietary applications.
...
> they want to distribute it closed.

Don't you see an inconsistency?

> I'm sorry, but that is a fear that
> is real and will stop programmers from using an LGPL library even
> when, for their planned use, there is no reason not to.

And proprietary applications built on free libraries are even more
real. aren't they?

> (obviously
> it stops them from using GPL code as well, but the GPL is serving
> it's purpose of encouraging open source).

The principal purpose of the GPL is users' freedom; you may use it
for other purposes, but you should admit that other people may not
share your goals.

> I feel the LGPL was either purposely designed to be useless, or
> was designed when it was figured the only shared library would be
> libc and thus included with the machine.

Your feeling deceives you. that license was designed for a very
specific purpose, it was used and was useful for that specific
purpose, it has never been recommended for general use (not by the FSF --
in fact, they discourage such use).

> We really, really need a
> clear license that is "what everybody thought the LGPL would be".

I believe I thought the LGPL would be the LGPL.

Ineiev wrote:
>> There is hardly any pain when your program is free.
> This is wrong. I as a library developer do not want to maintain
> ABI compatibility. That is a *PAINFUL* extra work and I am not
> interested one bit in doing it.

Could you elaborate on why the library developer is obliged
by the LGPL to maintain ABI compatibility when the users get
the corresponding source code, full and free, both for the library
and for the application?

> The linking exception lets everybody who could use the LGPL
> library use it just as easily, and without the pain of ABI
> compatibility. And nobody can "steal" my code any more than if it
> was LGPL.

The authors of the LGPL essentially took care of the users rather
than of "stealing" the code: if you can't link a modified library
to the executable, then the library gives you no freedom in using
the combination; the effect is similar to tivoization.