GPL and LGPL is okay. But for libs like SDL it would be usefull to
have a License that allows to use static linking on some special OSes.
It would be useful to be able to use SDL and other free software on
those OSes, but it’s the restrictions these OSes that are the problem,
not the [L]GPL.
On LGPL there is the need to ask every contributor if for him it would
be okay to use static linking.
Does LPGL allow to change the license without asking all the
contributors as long as the last LGPL version stays free and OSS ?
No. That would be “stealing”.
BSD-style licenses specifically allow this, but free licences do not.
In my opinion we will see more of these special OSes in the future, so
the problem gets bigger.
So, you would suggest we encourage it by making it easier for them to
exist? I think not.
I would rather see SDL become so good that it makes the creators of
these closed systems decide to at least open an exception for free
software so that their systems can be used in a free manner, even if it
is just along side their normal proprietary-only system.
All the above is IMHO, of course.On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 04:23:01PM +0200, Torsten Giebl wrote:
GPG public key: http://www.cs.binghamton.edu/~sgreene/gpg.key.txt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature