Alex Hudson home at alexhudson.com
Sun Mar 8 22:06:21 UTC 2009

Andrés G. Aragoneses wrote:
> * LGPL: less restrictive wrt the 0-freedom. 

The LGPL is just the GPL with additional permissions, but the GPL 
already gives unconditional permission to run. I'm not sure how you can 
get "less restrictive" than that.

> * AGPL: more restrictive wrt the 0-freedom.

That's not really true either; it's slightly more restrictive with 
respect to modification, not use.

> So, similarly to the AGPL case, there's another special scenario in
> which proprietary ISVs can take advantage of GPL/AGPL software without
> being forced to open their software.

I'm not sure everyone sees the GPL as a coercive tool, although many 
will agree it has that effect. There is a big difference between opting 
into the decision to share your software with others so you can receive 
the same in kind, and being forced to share because "that's what's right".

I'm also not sure to what extent people would actually want this. To be 
obviously in demand, there would need to be a reasonable set of people 
for whom the GPL was "too loose". Most development tools I'm aware of 
are actually licensed more "loosely" than the GPL, so why they would 
move to DGPL when they're not interested in the GPL is debatable.

I think in any situation where you move the discussion from "how I want 
share my software" to "how I want to force other people to share theirs" 
it becomes pretty indefensible morally, no matter how bad you think 
proprietary software is.



More information about the Discussion mailing list