nanogui: Request for comments - Microwindows
Subject:
Re: Request for comments - Microwindows
From:
"Vidar Hokstad" ####@####.####
Date:
4 Oct 1999 20:20:15 -0000
Message-Id: <19991004201620.22791.qmail@mail.relight.com>
>> That depends on what you consider the benefit of the GPL in this case.
>> It would allow people to write GPL'd programs with it, and to user GPL'd
>> code in their applications, *OR* to link it to non-free programs (using
>> the server under the MPL).
>
>I don't think that I understand what you mean. The licensing of a library
>does never prevent me from licesing my code under GPL.
Then I suggest you reread the GPL. The GPL requires that any code you
link with GPL'd code be either licensed under the GPL or under a license
that add no restrictions beyond what the GPL adds.
The MPL is incompatible with the GPL, and if you link GPL'd and MPL'd
code, you are violating the GPL.
>> The MPL allow static linking without releasing object code. It
>> also allows non-free additions to the project (read: drivers for hardware
>> where specs are only available under NDA), as long as they are in separate
>files.
>
>Wouldn't an LGPL'ed server part allow proprietary drivers too? I don't see
>the benefit of MPL here.
Yes, that's true, as long as it's available in object form. However, not
everyone wants to make their code available in object form, but might be
willing to release a server binary with the driver compiled in.
>And I can see your business reason for the client being LGPL (so that you
>can link it from proprietary programs).
>
>I still do not understand your need for MPL at all.
As mentioned time after time: The LGPL is *NOT ENOUGH* for some of the
third parties we might license code from, since they *won't* allow
their code to be released even in object form, which is a requirement
if the client libraries are LGPL'd (you are required to make your code
available in a form that let anyone relink the non-LGPL'd and LGPL'd parts).
>I do not at all like the fact that if the server side is under LGPL then
>people will be able to hide drivers from us, as I think this has the
>potential to seriously injure Micro*'s open-source value.
So has the lack of support for on devices where specs simply aren't openly
available.
Regards,
Vidar
