[PD-dev] flext license

[smoerk]

guenter geiger wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Frank Barknecht wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi,
>>smoerk schrieb:
>>    
>>
>>>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.
>>>      
>>>
>>This is simply not true. According to the GPL-FAQ at fsf.org, if you are
>>using libraries licensed under the GPL, you must use a GPL-compatible
>>license to use those libraries in your on software. The (modified) BSD
>>license is compatible with the GPL.
>>
>>Compatible here "means you can combine a module which was released under that
>>license with a GPL-covered module to make one larger program."
>>    
>>
>
>That was my feeling too, but I did not have the time to look this up
>really.
>I think LPGL is not giving you more freedom, it takes away freedom.
>Be clever and protect yourself. If you write free software you want to
>make sure that there won't be someone coming along, wrapping some code
>around your library and making millions without giving you a cent.
>
>  
>
the bad bad comercial guys ;-). do you really think you can make money 
with a comercial license? in the case of flext i doubt it. let them pay 
for your support and your knowledge and don't ignore the advantages of 
the LGPL in some cases: Apple was able to use the KHTML library (HTML 
rendering) for there closed source Safari browser, because it's licensed 
under the LGPL. They made a lot of improvements to KHTML, which means a 
better open source HTML browser for Linux. Win-win situation...