Re: License is a non-issue?

On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, James Rich wrote:
>
> > Can you use the LGPL for non-libraries?  The word "library" seems to be
> > used throughout the text of the license.
>
> LGPL now stands for the Lesser GNU Public License.  It is not library
> specific.  Though I am voting (if it counts) that the libraries
> (libtn5250.so) be LGPL and the applications (tn5250, lp5250d) be GPL.
>

It's actually "lib5250.so" or "lib5250.dll", not "libtn5250".

As Carey pointed out at the start of this, we can't use the GPL as-is if
we're going to distribute binaries linked with OpenSSL.

According to some text I found in the LGPL file:

       When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using
      a shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a
      combined work, a derivative of the original library.  The ordinary
      General Public License therefore permits such linking only if the
      entire combination fits its criteria of freedom.

Since the "entire combination" would not fit the GPL's criteria of freedom
(due to OpenSSL's advertising clause) we could not distribute the
application if the executables were licensed under the GPL as-is.

Consequently, we either need to use the LGPL across the board, or we need
to use the GPL with an exception clause that permits linking with OpenSSL,
or change to a different license altogether, such as the BSD or MIT
licenses.  (Which is also what Carey said at the start of this whole
topic)

<RANT STATE="ON">

I'd prefer the BSD license.  Why?  Because I find all of these legal
technicalities to be a hassle and a nuisance.  I want to be protected
against any unforseen lawsuits that may someday develop from the use of
my software...  I want to protect my name on the work...  I don't want to
restrict what it can be linked with, or how it can be distributed.
Honestly, I don't care how the end user manages to link it or distribute
it, as long as I don't get blamed for it (which is the difference between
the MIT and the BSD licenses, the "no-endorsement" clause)

However, since the consensus here seems to be that the GPL is the best
choice, I'm willing to do my part and use the GPL adding the appropriate
clauses to my work.   Make no mistakes, however, I'm not a fan of the GPL
and I'm not going to bend over backwards just to make my code work with
it.

</RANT>

Anyhow...  Since Mr. Felice and I are willing to add these exceptions, we
just need to hear from Mr. Madore.  We can't do anything until we do...