gpgme license

[marius aamodt eriksen]

* Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann at ruhr-uni-bochum.de> [020723 21:21]:

> > so, linking gzsig into gpgme would indeed make it a non-free piece of
> > software.
> 
> Uh, no, unless you consider GPL software to be non-free software, which
> requires malicious intentions or a very strange understanding of what freedom
> means.  I don't really think that either is true for you, so where is your
> misunderstanding?  The new BSD license (the one without the advertisement
> clause) is compatible with the GPL, in the sense that software covered under
> the one license can be combined with software covered under the other
> license, and the result will have to be distributed under the terms of the
> GPL (note that the BSD license allows to relicense derived works).

right.  and redistribution under the terms of the GPL restricts some
of the fundemental freedoms of the BSD license.  these are not
acceptable terms for me.  the LGPL, on the other hand, would prevent
my software to also be under these conditions, and thusly not tainted
by the GPL.  the GPL is even more restrictive than a proprietary code;
had i bought a commercial, closed-source library, the conditions would
(most likely) allow me to keep my current license for *MY* source,
even though the user would have to purchase his or her copy of the
library.  think about it for a second, these are pretty heavy and
elitist restrictions.  this is why i consider the GPL a non-free
license.  my definition of free software is that you're able to do
anything you like with it (and i don't mind conserving credit), the
GPL license restricts this in very fundemental ways.

marius.

-- 
> marius at umich.edu > http://www.citi.umich.edu/u/marius