BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business

[Patrik Stridvall]

> > The *GPL extends the circumstances where I can take somebodies work.
> 
> but isn't this notion rather frightening?

Frightning? Have you been effected with Brett fear mongering? :-)

I don't consider it frightning. Copyleft is a trade where someone
was allowed distribute my work and did and as companation I
can take his related work.

Of course this is not always good as I have been arguing in
countless mail, but that is another thing. Sometimes this
is good idea sometimes it is not.
 
> > > nor does it force you to give up your copyright (effectively).
> > 
> > Neither does the LGPL you can still license the code to others
> > under any license. You just have to give it back under the
> > LGPL as well.
> 
> if you have to give out an unlimited, royalty free license to your
> work, I think it's not unfair to say that you have given up your
> copyright protection.  As the copyright holder, it's true that you
> can relicense it to suit other licenses, but it's not clear to me
> that you can clearly make a copyright infringment case if there is
> an LGPLed copy in the public.

Well if somebody uses my work in a way either not permitted by LGPL
or explicitly permited by me through some other license I can't see
why I can't sue.

At least not unless you claim that Open Source == Public Domain,
but that is something else entirely.