GPL and LGPL question
paul at hedonism.demon.co.uk
Wed May 19 12:04:39 UTC 1999
Bruce Perens <bruce at va.debian.org> writes:
> FSF will never strike LGPL #3 . It would go against their stated goal
> of having all software free for them to do so.
Further, to distribute a program that combined GPL and LGPL-#3 code
would be a violation of the GPL (where LGPL-#3 means a license
identical to the LGPL except for the omission of Clause 3).
IMHO as many licenses as possible should include such a clause, but
no-one should exercise that clause when distributing modified
code. This gives us GPL compatibility without GPL restrictions.
Better yet, allow conversion to the LGPL, which transitively allows
conversion to the GPL.
\/ o\ paul at hedonism.demon.co.uk http://www.hedonism.demon.co.uk/paul/ \ /
/\__/ Paul Crowley Upgrade your legacy NT machines to Linux /~\
More information about the License-discuss