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...