PROPOSAL: licensing guidelines

[Shaya Potter]

On Wed, 17 May 2000, Dan Kegel wrote:

> Maurizio De Cecco wrote:
> > Erik Troan <ewt at redhat.com> writes:
> > > >    - Clause 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software.
> > > >       While using the GPL for libraries is conformant with this OSD
> > > >       requirement, we do not want the runtime linking of any GPL
> > > >       libraries to be required for conformance with our standards.
> > 
> > The standard define the API, while the licence cover the implementation, right ?
> > 
> > Should this then translate that the standard should include only library APIs for which
> > at least one Open Source that is not GPL implementation exists ?
> > 
> > Who is going to explain this to Mr. Stallman ?
> 
> I think he already understands.  For libraries that must achieve
> extremely wide deployment, and for which the GPL is too restrictive,
> he has devised the LGPL.

Actually I think he doesn't look at it this same wasy was you.  The LGPL
(in his view) is when their's already good "closed" versions of that
library, so that if you'd GPL the library no one would use it b/c of the
"viral" nature, since they have alternatives.  The GPL should be used in
all other cases.

see http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html