On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:11:51 -0700, Brett Glass brett@lariat.org wrote:
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 friend,
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.
--Brett Glass
Seems to me that contributers should have most of the say....
john alvord