[PD-dev] flext license

[smoerk]

Frank Barknecht schrieb:
> Hi,
> smoerk schrieb:
> 
>>The alternative would be a BSD license, which is the most liberal 
>>license. Why not just use the license PD uses? I think it's similar to 
>>BSD (or is it BSD license)?
>>
>>But also LGPL is much better than GPL... :-)
> 
> 
> Well, it's not better, but something different. Before I go on, I'd better
> say, that I prefer the GPL for my projects and in general. RMS himself has
> written long articles regarding the differece between the LGPL and the GPL,
> for example: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
> 
> In a nutshell it boils down to this: Use the LGPL, if you want proprietary,
> non-free software written with your library, use the GPL, if you don't want
> this. Plus: If you have written a software/library, that has no commercial
> alternative, use the GPL to strengthen the Free software movement.
> Because then "we have something, they (the proprietarians) haven't".

The problem with the GPL for libraries is, that you don't have the 
freedom to use another license than GPL for your externals for example a 
BSD license. If I were a developer and wanted to write a external for 
pd, I would not use the GPL flext library, because it forces me to put 
my code under the GPL license. So I would write my external only for pd 
instead of using flext and make it portable.