nanogui: Interesting article
Subject:
Re: Interesting article
From:
Alessandro Rubini ####@####.####
Date:
15 Mar 2001 21:44:48 -0000
Message-Id: <20010315224945.A6070@morgana.systemy.it>
Hello.
This is not meant to raise any flame wars.
Jordan Crouse about the LGPL:
> [...] while still allowing companies freedom to charge for their
> proprietary programs. Everybody wins. You get a library that is
> widely used, and the company gets a profitable program based on
> quality open source code.
I think "everybody wins" is a little far fetched. There may be reasons
for using the LGPL (instead of the GPL) for libraries, and there may
be reasons not to.
All the code I write is Free Software, and I have a hard time earning
my living and stay up to date with hardware and technologies. If I
released a library with the LGPL and a company makes a proprietary
package using it, they win, but I loose. They are "free to charge for
their proprietary program" but I don't get my share for writing part
of it and the user gets no freedom at all. I don't think it's a fair
game: if they don't help me, I'm not bound to help them. I'd rather
have them write their own library, or I'd rather *not* have one more
proprietary program. Someone else could consider getting specific
royalties to allow them to proprietarize.
Every licensing scheme has its pros and its cons. The LGPL may be a
good choice, and sometimes "everybody wins". But sometimes not.
I'm writing this message only to show Amit a different point of view
from the one that has been brought by previous message, not to raise
any flame.
/alessandro, speaking only for himself, not for GNU or any other organization
