> I just read an article by RMS
No you didn't.
That much is clear.
> in which he is thinking of changing libraries over from the LGPL to the GPL.
No he wasn't.
He was asking that new libraries be released under the GPL, rather than
the LGPL, where appropriate.
> This will have the unwanted side-effect of driving commercial interests
> away from further ports of proprietary software
Will it? Why can't they write their own library?
> (potentially deny these ports' future conversion to open source)
Ummm, right, yes. Whatever.
If you had read the article you would have seen hard evidence of the
GPLing of libraries causing software to be converted to open source.
That doesn't mean it's always the case, but it is further proof that you
haven't actually read the article.
> RMS's article is at http://linuxtoday.com/stories/2754.html
Well, Alex, you'd do very well to go and read it, then.
> That man is starting to worry me.
You're starting to worry us all.
> If he forces certain critical libraries such as glibc into the GPL
> instead of the current LGPL, it spells deep trouble for all.
Assuming you've read the article by now, you will have noticed this:
------------------------------<RMS>-------------------------------------
[Explanation of why sometimes one should use LGPL]
"This is why we used the Library GPL for the GNU C library. After all,
there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have
driven proprietary software developers to use another--no problem for
them, only for us."
------------------------------</RMS>------------------------------------
Assuming you've come out of your hash-haze by now, you will have noticed
this:
In most cases, RMS is talking about libraries over whose licenses he has
no control. He can not change them.
Assuming you've gone and drunk some coffee by now, you will have realised
this:
RMS is not interested in libraries that are already written and available.
He is making a point to the authors of new libraries to consider which
license is appropriate.
> Cheers,
> Alex
Funny, I am somehow surprised not to see "Greetings from Riley" here. :)
> /\_/\ Legalise cannabis now!
Yes, do that.
> ( o.o ) Grow some cannabis today!
No, don't do that.
Take a look at where it got Alex.
> > ^ < Peace, Love, Unity and Respect to all.
Except perhaps Richard Stallman. :)
I find it hard to believe he finally wrote something that seems free of
invective, confrontationalism, and items that, with further consideration
he would have realised would merely invite flamewars that would
completely distract people from the point he was trying to make.[0]
I find it even harder to believe that he has been lambasted by Alex,
anyway, but it's refreshing to see that noone who has read the article has
been so abusive.
> http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk - *new* - Leaving the States for good!
Which states?
The states of Lucidity, Literacy, and Comprehension, I don't doubt.
I know I can't stop the stupid flamewar to follow what Alex wrote.
I know I'm as likely to contribute to it with this as to stem the tide.
I just want people to realise that if you don't read the article you are
arguing over, you are usually going to end up looking like an idiot.
At least now the bulk of the 2.2 panic is over, the noise is only
obscuring a smallish and perhaps less essential signal.
-Greg Mildenhall
[0] But still, I don't agree with RMS here, since I don't see the GPL
as the be-all and end-all of free software licenses.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/