LGPL is Viral for Java

carlfish writes "According to this post to POI-dev, Dave Turner (Mr License) of the FSF has decreed that the steps required to use an LGPL'd Java library will actually infect client code with substantial GNU-ness via Section 6 of the LGPL. (The "Lesser" GPL is supposed to protect only the Library, without infecting code using the library) This, as you might imagine, puts a few LGPL Java projects that previously thought they were embeddable without being viral in a bit of a bind. Various weblogs have further coverage." Update: 07/18 02:44 GMT by CN : The FSF's Executive Director, Brad Kuhn adds "LGPL's S. 6 allows you to make new works that link with the LGPL'ed code, and license them any way you see fit. Only the LGPL'ed code itself must remain Free. Such 'client code' can even be proprietary; it need not be LGPL'ed."

Comments

Re:The GPL is not viral.

[The Bungi]

you are a retarded assmonkey who needs to shut up and read what Richard Stallman has to say about the goals of the FSF and the GPL

Stallman's goals are the erradication of all commercial software. So that "information can be free". Do you contend that? If not then I think a good case can be made that the GPL is his way of extending and embracing the very thing he wants to disappear. It's a passive method of course, unlike "other EULAs", as you so delicately put it. But ultimately it's no different.

It's a tribute to the quality of open source software that he even remotely has a chance to do that, of course. If that wasn't the case then nobody would even bother listening to him.

BTW, "assmonkey" is right up there with "fucktard" in the list of colorful adjectives used by low-IQ Slashdot posters who can't come up with something intelligent to say if their lives depended on it. But then again I can understand your off-the-cuff remarks. The parent post seems to have hit a bit of a soft spot. Very interesting.

Re:And I suspect most of us feel the same way...

[BitGeek]

The intent and purpose of the GPL is to prevent anyone anywhere from selling, or otherwise making money off of any software. That is the goal.

Thus, the LGPL which is sort of a compromise on this goal is going to always be problematic.

I don't work with or deal with any form of GPL software for these reasons-- it creates too much risk... and we have enough people in our lives trying to force us to conform to their ideology.

Its ironic that GPL stuff is called "Free" and non-GPLed stuf is called "open source"-- when GPL lets you see the source, but you are not free to use it, except in a narrow way.

I understand the thinking behind this, but the industry has progressed to the point where everyone sees the value in contributing back to the code base-- and I believe BSD style software will eventually outpace GPL styled software becuase of the more free license with BSD.

The FSF needs to re-work their licenses and make them Free, instead of Open. Too many companies and individuals have shied way from contributing to GPL software because of these concerns.

Re:The GPL is like a Vaccine

[JonMartin]

You forgot the group that wants to release their code but they also want the assurance that anyone making additions shares back.

They fall into the last two groups. It depends on how they say it:

"I think it would be nice if you participated in open source." -> misguided GPL believer.

"You are not allowed to have private code! SHARE THE SOURCE! SHARE THE SOURCE!" -> diehard RMS zealot