Re: [DotGNU]Changing pnetlib license to LGPL

[BioChem333]

On Fri, 2002-07-12 at 14:18, Mario D. Santana wrote:
> Assuming there are no LGPL-derived bits in the native implementation, the
> proprietary bits are in their little black box while the free bits are
> still free. Sounds like just the type of compromise the LGPL tries to
> strike, no?

No, the LGPL tries to strike a compromise with _users_ of the library,
not extenders. The whole point of using the LGPL is to allow for
proprietary users of the library while still protecting the library
itself. Improvements to the library, wherever they come from, should be
contributed back; as I see it that's what the LGPL is all about.
Unfortunately, with this loophole, there is no incentive for a
proprietary vendor to contribute those improvements back to the free
software community. This essentially gives them all the advantage, since
every time we make improvements, they get to use them, but every time
they make improvements only they get to use them. Unless I've completely
misunderstood the basic concepts behind FSF licensing, this is exactly
what the GPL and LGPL were made to prevent.

Rich