Re: [DotGNU]Changing pnetlib license to LGPL

[BioChem333]

On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 19:19, Rhys Weatherley wrote:
> There has been some discussion behind the scenes between
> myself and Bradley Kuhn over the last few months about
> changing the license on pnetlib to LGPL.
> 
> Currently, pnetlib is licensed under "GPL plus linking
> exception", similar to GNU Classpath.  It is a perfectly
> good license, but it may be better to use a more well
> understood variant of the GPL.
> 
> The runtime engine and the compiler will remain under
> the GPL for the time being.
> 
> I don't have any problem with making the change, but I
> want to get some feedback from the DotGNU community first.
> What are people's thoughts?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rhys.

My 2 cents worth:

The LGPL wasn't chosen for a reason, a very good reason, and the
situation hasn't changed. The LGPL loophole has the potential to make
the libs non-free; if it's used, they might as well be X11'd. Any lack
of understanding about the GPL+linking license (personally, I think the
explanation is very clear and easy to understand) will be resolved as
its use becomes more widespread (particularly as pnetlib and classpath
mature and gain a larger user-base). Although I can't recall where, I
have seen the same type of license used on other projects as well. If
there is to be any change, it should only be to an official GNU standard
GPL+linking license, or to a new official GNU standard version of the
LGPL which eliminates the loophole.

Rich