Dr. Seuss, licensing, and WINE
jalvo at mbay.net
Fri Feb 8 13:28:05 CST 2002
On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:11:51 -0700, Brett Glass <brett at lariat.org>
>At 07:34 AM 2/8/2002, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
>>Could you have finished wiht a more dumb line? LGPL _is_ open source my
>This is not what Richard Stallman and Bradley Kuhn of the FSF say. They
>say, most emphatically, that it is NOT Open Source.
>And they are, in this case, correct. The GPL and LGPL violate the
>Open Source Definition, because they discriminate against a
>field of endeavor (the production of commercial software) and against
>a group of people (programmers who produce commercial software).
>Anyone can use (L)GPLed code in the way that benefits him or her
>the most... EXCEPT the commercial programmer, who cannot use the
>code in his or her work, study it to learn from it, fix a bug in
>it, or even look at it without risking his or her livelihood (for
>the reasons described in my earlier message).
>This is not irrelevant -- it's vitally important. Many of the people
>who use and contribute to WINE would be hurt by the (L)GPL's "poison
>pill," while the project would not benefit from it.
Seems to me that contributers should have most of the say....
More information about the wine-devel