[lug] GPL/Open Source License Questions

[Scott Herod]

On Mon, 19 May 2003, Philip Cooper wrote:

> Wait...I'll answer (for some anyway)...it's the one everyone's heard
> of and everyone knows it drives Linux.  GPL is good for things like
> OS's and core systems where you always want better things and the
> latest fixes disseminated widely as possible.  Beyond that it is more
> of a hinderance to open source computing than a help ...slight pause
> while I don my asbestos undies...Far too many people release under GPL
> without thinking about the consequences.

I agree with you.  There are several "Open Source" licenses.  Someone 
releasing software should consider how they want their package to be used 
and what freedoms they wish to give to others.

My personal preference is to release end-user products GPL'ed but lower
level libraries with a less restrictive license, typically the LGPL.  I
confess that I want my libraries to be publicly available, but also used
even possibly in a product that is not intended to be released under the
GPL.

BTW, dare I mention that I believe Apache is in violation?  On some 
platforms, it links against libgdbm which is GPL'ed, and I don't believe 
that the Apache license is compatible with the GPL.