Subject: Re: More licensing flames...
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <email@example.com>
Date: 09/21/1998 23:00:40
firstname.lastname@example.org (Greg A. Woods) writes:
> The Sleepycat copyright license on their DB-2.x goes one step further
> and contains terms that some might describe as "viral" -- i.e. they
> attempt to force people who distribute software linked against DB-2.x to
> also be freely re-distributable in source form. I.e. the DB-2.x
> copyright license is very much more like the GNU LGPL than the GPL.
Uh, do you have those reversed?
The LGPL says, in a nutshell: you link bits against these LGPL'd
sources, you have to distribute the LGPL'd sources and at least
objects for the rest of the bits (not necessarily sources).
The GPL says, in a nutshell: you link bits against these GPL'd bits,
you have to give away sources for everything.
(Yes, I know that those aren't completely true to the respective
licenses, but those are the flavors.)
Berkeley-style is less odious than LGPL which is in turn less odious
than GPL. ("Next time, i'll tell you what I _really_ feel!")
> Or maybe nobody else noticed before now.... ;-)
Others have noticed, they just never felt the strong desire to step up
and SCREAM like is appropriate.
Chris Demetriou - email@example.com - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.
Plug: Get your official NetBSD-1.3.2 CDROM set today! http://www.netbsd.com/