[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Relicensing policy & weak copyleft
From: |
Karl Berry |
Subject: |
Re: Relicensing policy & weak copyleft |
Date: |
Thu, 19 Sep 2013 21:40:44 GMT |
No, some Gnulib modules are intended for use only in standalone
applications,
But Paul, as you know, this is precisely not the distinction between
LGPL and GPL (library vs. program) that rms wants for GNU.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
The somewhat-valid argument for the constant license relaxation in
gnulib that I see is that much of gnulib is about stuff already
available under permissive licenses. For example, any functionality
offered by glibc is pretty obviously pointless to keep GPL'd or LGPL3'd.
For non-glibc functionality, though, it's less clear to me.
Anyway.
karl
- Re: Request to relicense hash gnulib module to LGPLv2+, Richard W.M. Jones, 2013/09/09
- Re: Request to relicense hash gnulib module to LGPLv2+, Eric Blake, 2013/09/12
- Re: Request to relicense hash gnulib module to LGPLv2+, Simon Josefsson, 2013/09/12
- Re: Request to relicense hash gnulib module to LGPLv2+, Paul Eggert, 2013/09/12
- Relicensing policy & weak copyleft, Ludovic Courtès, 2013/09/19
- Re: Relicensing policy & weak copyleft, Paul Eggert, 2013/09/19
- Re: Relicensing policy & weak copyleft,
Karl Berry <=
- Re: Relicensing policy & weak copyleft, Paul Eggert, 2013/09/19
- Re: Relicensing policy & weak copyleft, Karl Berry, 2013/09/19
- Re: Relicensing policy & weak copyleft, Paul Eggert, 2013/09/19
- Re: Relicensing policy & weak copyleft, Richard W.M. Jones, 2013/09/23
- Re: Relicensing policy & weak copyleft, Ludovic Courtès, 2013/09/23