| |||||||||||||
GPL -> LGPL is almost always a bad moveGPL -> LGPL is almost always a bad movePosted Feb 20, 2012 19:55 UTC (Mon) by endecotp (guest, #36428)In reply to: GPL -> LGPL is almost always a bad move by coriordan Parent article: VLC 2.0 released
I've seen at least one Mac application that uses VLC without any attempt at GPL compliance. The change only means that they can now do this legally. Do we know the authors' reasoning for the change? Perhaps they are just adapting to the reality of how their code was being used anyway.
In some sense, the worst situation to be in is where the "good guys" would like to use your code but can't because of your license, and the "bad guys" just use your code illegally. Think about it this way: are you likely to get more contributions back [e.g. bug-fixes] from someone who uses your GPL code illegally, or from someone who uses your LGPL code legally?
(Log in to post comments)
GPL -> LGPL is almost always a bad move Posted Feb 20, 2012 21:24 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
There are indeed some circumstances where LGPL is better, but they're rare. It'd be overly optimistic to presume that each case is one of the rare cases, and there's nothing on the announcement page to support the idea that this change is for the benefit of free software users.
In general, a change from GPL to LGPL is a loss, not something to celebrate.
|
|||||||||||||