>>LGPL libs are used all over by all kinds of closed sorce applications and
>>that's the whole idea of making things (like glib) into LGPL instead of
>>GPL. For example Acrobat Reader 7 for unix uses GTK+ and it is LGPL.
>>Acrobat Reader surely do require GTK+.
>
>
> Maybe LGPL is OK, but I think we will try to avoid a dependency on LGPL
> code if we can help it.
It can be argued that the LGPL is a "better" license than the GPL or
BSD. For example:
GPL module: programmer releases, second programmer picks up, must also
release under the gpl. If it is a derivative product that product must
be under the GPL. All changes must be released back.
BSD: programmer releases, second programmer can steal it, legally and
do pretty much anything he wants with it, including close source it
and not give changes back.
LGPL: programmer releases, second programmer picks up, must submit
changes back as LGPL BUT second programmer can close source products
around the LGPL code.
LGPL is what makes people be able to create closed source apps on linux
that are derived from gcc.
My understanding is that if libc on Linux was GPL (instead of LGPL) then
PostgreSQL would not legally be able to be compiled on the platform
without it too being GPL.
That is one of the reason why the major corps solidified on Gnome.
Because if you make a Gnome app you don't HAVE to give it away. If
you make a KDE app, you do (Unless you purchase QT).
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
