On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 07:33:27PM +0000, Miklos Vajna wrote: > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 05:00:52AM -0800, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Under LGPL, you must provide linkable object files to your (possibly > > closed source) program, so that people who made changes to (or obtained an > > updated version of) a LGPL'ed library can re-link your program and use the > > updated library. The above does not ask you to do so. > > > > The way I read LGPL is that "We deeply care about our LGPL library and any > > improvements to it. Although we do not care at all about how your crappy > > closed source program is written, we want to make sure that the users can > > keep using your program after improvements are made to our library.". I > > do not think it makes a practical difference when your program uses the > > LGPL library as a shard library from that point of view. > > Ah, I see - so this is a "Lesser LGPL". :) LGPL also has a clause that allow the user to make it become GPLv2 or later, even if you chose LGPL v2.1 *only* (as in not LGPL v2.1 or later). Seeing how the FSF has just decided to use those upgrade clauses with the GFDL, I'm not really likely to fancy the use of any license that forces me to accept an "or later" clause. I would be _really_ against the LGPL FWIW. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpqSJkxoXPpv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
