[jhartmann]

Flame Suit On / Rant Mode On

I actually really don't understand why anyone uses GPL for a library. I've been doing open source for a long long time, and love the GPL. I have code in the Linux kernel, and believe free software AND open source software are great solutions to very real problems in software engineering. Having open code just gives people more options, and I firmly believe it will win over time as far as quality is concerned.

I just think only providing libraries to other GPL code is stupid. It just limits the usefulness of the software. LGPL is great here, you get the core changes contributed back to your library from a greater group of people and everyone wins. Limiting a library to GPL means a large population can not use your code, those writing applications that can't be licensed under the GPL. Limiting choice is BAD. The whole reason you should be creating and using free software and OSS is to not weld the hood shut. GPL should be for applications, LGPL just limits choices for libraries. Down with the GPL for libraries!!!

Flame Suit Off / Rant Mode Off

[mjn]

Limiting choice is BAD. The whole reason you should be creating and using free software and OSS is to not weld the hood shut.

But you sound like you want to limit choice for users. The whole point of free software from the GNU perspective is to keep options open for users, and not allow downstream devs to "weld the hood shut" on derivatives by adding more restrictions on what users can do with those derivatives.

However, there are other reasons people choose it as well. One motivation you sometimes encounter is a view that, if someone's code is used in proprietary, commercial software, they'd like to be paid for it. Hence the dual-licensed model used by libraries like Qt and the Stanford Parser: you can use the GPL version if you're willing to GPL your own app, or you can buy a proprietary license if you aren't. Seems reasonably fair: I give you my code free if you reciprocate and do likewise with your own code, or I sell you a license for cash otherwise.

[H3g3m0n]

If someone is wanting to go with the full GPL I think the AGPL would be a better fit anyway otherwise people can use a webservice to do all the processing. Could even charge for it and not give any in house changes back.

[to3m]

LPGL isn't vastly better than the GPL as it makes it difficult to link statically and/or release for closed platforms. Its advocates would probably see these as plus points, but I'm not sure that they're going to increase uptake.

[thwest]

Difficult, but not really a significant part of the challenges for delivering closed source binaries across platforms.

On linux, you have to build distribution specific binaries that match the shared library versions in the package manager.

On Windows, you generally put all of your shared libraries in your application's folder, since there are plenty of bad actors who install DLLs without versions in the filename to system32. Leads to duplication on the system but its a generally accepted bad practice.

(Can't speak to shipping LGPL libs on OS X).

[to3m]

I was thinking more of Xbox360, Playstation3, iOS, etc. - none support user-replacable files. I don't even think any even support dynamic linking... )

[eps]

LGPL basically means that if I modify the libary code, I should open source the changes, but I can build derived products (in GPL sense) from an unchanged lib as much as I want. This static vs dynamic linking debate is a silly pendantry, enforcing which doesn't contribute anything to the GNU's goals or vision. It's really disappointing to see people time on this. If you want to pursue justice - go after the GPL violations. Making one to re-link a binary to force a compliance is a misplaced effort and essentially a waste of everyone's time.

[to3m]

Requiring the programmers to keep their changes to the library open is one aspect of keeping the software free; requiring that the end user be able to replace the library with a different one is another, and one that the FSF seems keen on maintaining. Personally, I agree that wider-spread usage of the libraries would be better than the current rather doctrinaire stance - but I assume the FSF sees the LGPL's current emphasis on end-user freedom as contributing more to the GNU goals than wider-spread usage of the libraries would.

In the meantime, there's always the MIT licence.

[kruhft]

Some people believe in software freedom more than you do.

[forrestthewoods]

Some people define "freedom" with 10 pages of restrictions of which the exact interpretation is continuously debated years after release. Other people consider that the opposite of freedom.

[ddfu]

Some wouldn't mind their open-source software integrated into high-frequency trading systems and military munitions, and others either object on moral terms or wish to be paid fairly for such lucrative use.

Do you think programmers shouldn't have the choice to decide whether their software may be used to kill people or cause the next flash crash? GPLv3 allows programmers to share their software while making sure big corporations and defense contractors steer clear.