The Industry choice
Jeff Shannon
jeff at ccvcorp.com
Fri Jan 7 14:33:42 EST 2005
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Jeff Shannon <jeff at ccvcorp.com> writes:
>
>>Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to
>>*modifications you make* to the GPL software.
>
>
> Well, only under an unusually broad notion of "modification".
True enough. It can be difficult, in software development, to define
a distiction between a situation where two software products are
distinct but cooperative, and a situation where one software product
is derivative of another. Stallman has chosen a particular definition
for use in the GPL; one may debate the value of using this definition
over any other possible definition, but the line had to be drawn
*somewhere*. (And given Stallman's philosophies, it shouldn't be too
surprising that he's drawn it about as broadly as he reasonably could.)
>>(Problems may come if someone licenses a library under the GPL; that's
>>what the LGPL was invented for. But the issue here is not that the
>>GPL is bad, it's that the author used the wrong form of it.)
>
>
> The "problem" is not a problem except that in the case of some
> libraries, simply being able to use a library module is often not
> enough incentive to GPL a large application if the library module's
> functionality is available some other way (including by
> reimplemntation). If the library does something really unique and
> difficult, there's more reason to GPL it instead of LGPL'ing it.
To my mind, the intent of the GPL is "use it, but if you change it or
make a derivative, share the changes". With libraries, though, you
*can't* use it without hitting the FSF-specified definition of a
derivative. The LGPL exists to make it clear that, for libraries, the
common meaning of "using" and "changing" are different than they are
for applications.
Of course, there's nothing that stops people from insisting that, if
you *use* their libraries, anything you use them for must be
free-as-in-speech (which is the effect of using the GPL instead of the
LGPL); it's the author's choice what restrictions should be put on the
software. But the usage-restrictions on a library under GPL are more
severe than they are on an application under GPL. The unfortunate
thing, in my opinion, is that a fair number of library authors don't
think about that when they GPL their code.
Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International
More information about the Python-list
mailing list