LGPL - A change on the way (Groklaw) [LWN.net]

LGPL - A change on the way (Groklaw)

Posted Jul 14, 2006 1:38 UTC (Fri) by Richard_J_Neill (subscriber, #23093)
In reply to: LGPL - A change on the way (Groklaw) by zlynx
Parent article: LGPL - A change on the way (Groklaw)

I think it's meant to work sort of that way. Basically, the LGPL was originally termed the "library GPL" (iirc), with the intent being to allow proprietary code to link with an LGPL library. This is sensible for glibc, but not really for much else. When the "library" GPL was renamed the "lesser" GPL, it was to help clear up this confusion.

So, in part, the idea of LGPL->GPL is exactly that: to encourage everyone to move to the GPL, even for libraries - and to correct a historic mistake.
It's no different to taking some BSD or public domain code, modifying it, and putting the whole thing under GPL.

(Log in to post comments)

LGPL - A change on the way (Groklaw)

Posted Jul 14, 2006 2:03 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

I'm sure that that's exactly what RMS hopes will happen to projects.

however, glibc does not account for all libraries. there are a lot of libraries out there (most of gnome and kde are supposedly libraries remember)

now it has always been possible to take a lgpl project and add gpl code to make the result gpl-only, so this is nothing new, they are just being more explicit in pushing for it to happen.

and personally, I think this is just one more thing that will slow the adoption of the gplv3 for many significant projects (note that I don't doubt that very quickly after the release of the gplv3 numericly the majority of projects will switch, but in terms of real projects that are under development I expect it will take a bit longer)

LGPL - A change on the way (Groklaw)

Posted Jul 14, 2006 4:59 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

""Being able to convert LGPL to GPL sounds like a bad idea to me. It is just going to provide the potential for lots of dumb lawsuits.""

Well since that is exactly how it works right now I dont' think it's a problem. LGPL is GPL compatable. Anyone at any time can release a GPL'd version of a LGPL program, right now.

They are just making it more obvious by explicitly stating it.

(Along with a couple other points about people adding additional restrictions. (like the example "Oh this GPL'd program is for non-commercial use only", which doesn't make sense. You'd have to use a different license entirely))