I understand what you say, but I believe that developers are clever enough to understand the difference between GPL and LGPL... Are there many examples of such mistakes ? Personally, all the libraries that I found useful for my own purpose where correctly licensed under LGPL, which means that I'll be able to use them commercially. This is fair because to complete my project I will write a lot of code. This is MY code that I will sell, not the other parts... And at the same time, I contribute to some of the LGPL libraries that I use in my project, so I give back to the community... To sum up, so far, I have been quite pleased with GPL and LGPL. I use some GPL softwares (such as GCC) to construct my project, and I use LGPL libraries for common things such as the UI (I do personally use FLTK, but this could be GTK, and not Qt !) Furthermore, if it happens that I improve some of the LGPL libraries that I use, then I'll send back these improvement to the community.
But this is stupid : don't forget that GPL is usually for whole softwares, but for libraries only, you can use LGPL which is a LOT LESS restrictive ! Furthermore you can still use some GPLed program to help in the creation of your own program under any license (the best example is GCC) It is quite normal that the GPL restrict thief from taking one whole software and create their own sligthly modified commercial version...
Imagine if those virtual minds decided to play quake, using our own body, controlling it via the nanobots ! We could call this "Real virtuality" Altought we would not like that a lot, this mean too that we should also think when we play quake that we may actually hurt those poor IAs in the computer... Not yet maybe, but someday... What a responsability to have a computer at home !
Slashdot Mirror
I understand what you say, but I believe that developers are clever enough to understand the difference between GPL and LGPL ... Are there many examples of such mistakes ? ... ...
Personally, all the libraries that I found useful for my own purpose where correctly licensed under LGPL, which means that I'll be able to use them commercially. This is fair because to complete my project I will write a lot of code. This is MY code that I will sell, not the other parts
And at the same time, I contribute to some of the LGPL libraries that I use in my project, so I give back to the community
To sum up, so far, I have been quite pleased with GPL and LGPL. I use some GPL softwares (such as GCC) to construct my project, and I use LGPL libraries for common things such as the UI (I do personally use FLTK, but this could be GTK, and not Qt !) Furthermore, if it happens that I improve some of the LGPL libraries that I use, then I'll send back these improvement to the community.
But this is stupid : don't forget that GPL is usually for whole softwares, but for libraries only, you can use LGPL which is a LOT LESS restrictive ! Furthermore you can still use some GPLed program to help in the creation of your own program under any license (the best example is GCC) ...
It is quite normal that the GPL restrict thief from taking one whole software and create their own sligthly modified commercial version
Imagine if those virtual minds decided to play quake, using our own body, controlling it via the nanobots ! We could call this "Real virtuality" Altought we would not like that a lot, this mean too that we should also think when we play quake that we may actually hurt those poor IAs in the computer ... Not yet maybe, but someday ... What a responsability to have a computer at home !