Picking a license

[Patrick Maupin]

On May 14, 8:47 am, Paul Boddie <p... at boddie.org.uk> wrote:
> On 14 Mai, 05:35, Patrick Maupin <pmau... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I mean, it's in English and very technically precise, but if you
> > follow all the references, you quickly come to realize that the
> > license is a "patch" to the GPL.
>
> It is a set of exceptions applied to version 3 of the GPL, done this
> way so that the exceptions machinery of the GPL can be used to remove
> them if desired, as opposed to getting into the business of allowing
> people to relicense works from the LGPL to the GPL, as was the case
> with previous versions of these licences. You don't even have to read
> as far as the first clause of the LGPL terms to be told this, but I
> guess there's more "sport" in taking cheap shots at the authors than
> reading three lines down from the top of the text.
>
> Paul

That's not a cheap shot.  It's a (programmer) technical description of
how the licenses interact, along with an opinion that it would be
easier to read otherwise, along with a quoted snippet that shows (at
least to me) that these are really quite complicated licenses.  The
confusion that some are showing in this thread about whether source
must be distributed certainly helps to show that as well.  Now, it may
well be, and probably is, that the licenses are as simple as they can
be for the desired effect, but that doesn't make them simple.

Regards,
Pat