Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Companies *want* the GPLCompanies *want* the GPLPosted Jul 4, 2005 5:07 UTC (Mon) by lovelace (guest, #278)In reply to: Companies *want* the GPL by BrucePerens Parent article: ESR: 'We Don't Need the GPL Anymore' (O'ReillyNet)
Right. A lot of people say the GPL is anti-commercial, but it actually protects the commercial interests of those who wish to release free versions of their software while holding back the right to make non-free versions. They would either sell that right for money, using a commercial license; or use that right to restrain their competition. You know, the irony of this statement is incredible seeing as how Gtk was chosen for UserLinux over KDE and Qt simply because KDE and Qt are licensed under the GPL and not the LGPL.
(Log in to post comments)
No irony Posted Jul 4, 2005 9:30 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] No irony at all. The LGPL protects companies from non-free forks as well as the GPL; but it also allows for linking to non-free programs. The difference is really only relevant for libraries.By the way, KDE is not licensed wholly under the GPL, as explained here; Qt is, as explained in the document you linked. Just a fine point, but better safe than sorry when legal issues are at stake.
|
|
||||||||||||