I see no reason to change the license

[Sean Farley]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2002 18:32, David Elliott wrote:

> On 2002.02.09 13:52 Sean Farley wrote:
> > If you want to force the code out of others, a much stricter license
> > than the LGPL or even the GPL will be required.  Can anyone recommend
> > one and have it still be open source?
> >
> I don't think we want to force the code out of others.  Well, some people
> do, but that pretty much requires GPL which is not an option at all and
> shouldn't even be considered to remotely be an option.

This whole discussion was started from the request to change the license
to the LGPL to encourage companies to release their code.  If they can
easily get around the LGPL, what is the point of changing the license to
it?  Another license besides the LGPL and GPL needs to be found or
written to be stricter than those two as those will not accomplish that
goal.

> Mainly what I'd like to be able to do is keep the proprietary stuff
> seperate from the free parts of wine.  The LGPL accomplishes this and this
> is the LGPL's purpose, nothing more.

That would be a different goal than what was proposed.

> Of course if Lindows is nothing more than simple little one line bugfixes
> all over the place in Wine then LGPL would make it difficult for them.  If
> they rewrote large portions then LGPL makes it easier for them.

The first part is true.  The second part is not; any open source license
would do.

Sean
--------------
scf at farley.org