nanogui: Request for comments - Microwindows
Subject:
Re: Request for comments - Microwindows
From:
"Bradley D. LaRonde" ####@####.####
Date:
4 Oct 1999 20:18:52 -0000
Message-Id: <033701bf0ea4$b7e09f40$b8119526@ltc.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Holden ####@####.####
To: Bradley D. LaRonde ####@####.####
Cc: ####@####.#### ####@####.####
Sent: Monday, October 04, 1999 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Request for comments - Microwindows
> On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Bradley D. LaRonde wrote:
> > So why not use LGPL? IOW, why use MPL instead of LGPL?
>
> It's both less restrictive and designed to apply to anything; not just a
> library with a well defined interface API.
This is a library we are talking about here, right?
> It's also more sensibly
> designed (try reading them both and comparing them side by side- I did),
> and has passed a review by qualified solicitors (at Netscape). The FSF
> really seem to have the opinion that all code should be available under
> the GPL or not at all, and the LGPL is intentionally awkward to apply to
> anything other than a straight "link it in and it provides these
> functions" library to encourage people not to use it for anything else.
> The MPL is a much more elegant solution to the problem where you want to
> be able to link proprietory code to free code, and keep the free code free
> (and contribute improvements to it back) without having to release the
> proprietory code under the same license.
So I get to grant who, Greg, you, who? the right to use my improvements in
their own proprietary Micro*. Doesn't sound good to me. And I get to have
this priveledge for what? A more readable license and a conjecture that it
may be more legally sound? I'm not convinced that MPL is better than LGPL
for those reasons.
Regards,
Brad
