On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 09:54:59AM +0100, Aidan Delaney wrote:
I personally don't like things like Open Source or the LGPL.
LGPL is a clever tactical move by FSF, remember that they advise people to use it only in very special circumstances: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
If glibc was GPL'd, proprietary companies would have two choices, either GPL their software or write their own libc.
Oracle is not going to GPL their database, and it's not going to stay away from GNU/Linux. They would make their own libc, and they'd sell it to other proprietary companies. The end result being that the proprietary apps are available for GNU/Linux, and glibc loses relevence.
With LGPL, proprietary apps are available for GNU/Linux, but glibc remains the standard, and any changes made to glibc by proprietary companies still have to be contributed back.
To application developers, libc, not the kernel, is the core of an OS. We don't need a split at the core.
Ian correctly pointed out that goverment legislation that _forces_ the use of Free Software negates the whole idea of freedom.
I would have no problem if the govt required software companies to give users the permissions that Free Software ensures. It would simply be a consumer protection law. But I don't see this happening in the next decade, so a discussion would be moot.
It's leagal status is debatable (and not wholly of interest to me).
I'm a legaly-interested fellow, there's currently no valid claim that GPL is not enforceable.
A question of it's legality came from an M$-funded german legal group. Their claims were brain dead. They said it wasn't inforceable because it disclaimed warranty but it actually diclaims warranty "to the maximum extent permitted by law".
Another group brought up the european issue of "Moral Rights" with similar brain dead content. It's just part of the larger FUD campaign.
anyway, must dash, I've just received a mail that says I've won an award, and it's in all caps so it must be important...