From: Nicolai Hanssing <nuh@kampsax.dtu.dk>
To: gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com
Subject: GPL - long
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:20:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0107090925350.8597-100000@carlsberg.kampsax.dtu.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <007801c1088a$a4f34540$9bd526c0@kampsax.dtu.dk>
> > Regarding the GPL, as was previously said, there is information in the
> > new GPL FAQ linked off the front page at www.gnu.org. In particular
> > you will want to look at the questions,
> >
> > "If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean
> that
> > any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?"
> >
> > and
> >
> > "What if my school might want to make my program into its own
> proprietary
> > software pro
OK, I've read up on the faq, and on the why-not-lgpl...
I've normally haven't cared about the licenses, but as I'm probally not
far off from a real job, the diferences between GPL ang LGPL begins to
make a difference.
Now heres my two cents about the issue [sorry if they hae been posted
before]:
I'm a great supporter of free software, primarily I think *"the more the
better"*.
I also do not mind commercial software - money makes the world go round
y'know, and I also have a problem with the "Them vs. us"-style used in the
why-not-lgpl-document. Free software is an alternative to commercial, and
the other way around. I say, let the market decide.
Now when licensing something under GPL, that forces any company to *not*
use the software, but more importantly [from my view], it also forces them
to *not* contribute to the development.
Instead when using LGPL, a compyny may use the software, and may only
distribute modified versions under LGPL, i.e. they have to commit the
source, and that would also be an advantage for a company in many cases.
Therefor GPL inhibits my primary goal of more,better, free software, and
LGPL promotes it...
GPL only makes sense if:
You are *against* commercial software - I'm not.
You are against your software being used to make money - it's free - who
cares?
In the case of my thesis, I sadly cannot recommend GSL to the firm, but
must recommend that they go with some other pakage [Matlab or
something]. Nor will I recommend GNU/Linux to any of there applications -
theres just not enough clarity, and too much is licensed GPL...
Neither can I expect
that I in the future will be able to use GPL-projects at work, nor commit
to them.
I do hope that GSL someday will become LGPL, so that it won't just remain
a .edu/.org thing - and not just leave the market to Mathworks and the
likes. Thereby also broadening the potential developer-base.
Anyhow I still think it's a cool project :-), and while working on my
thesis I can still contributed - luckily.
Regards
Nicolai Hanssing
Denmark
next parent reply other threads:[~2001-12-19 13:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <007801c1088a$a4f34540$9bd526c0@kampsax.dtu.dk>
2001-12-19 13:20 ` Nicolai Hanssing [this message]
2001-12-19 13:20 ` Brian Gough
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.21.0107090925350.8597-100000@carlsberg.kampsax.dtu.dk \
--to=nuh@kampsax.dtu.dk \
--cc=gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).