gpgme license

[Max V. Zinal]

Well, I do not usually write messages on such a non-technical field, but 
the topic is too hot.

The main thing we should realize while talking about GPL is what FSF had 
tried to do with it. They talk about `public domain', but the major 
reason was to create some sort of a snowball, which could bigger and 
bigger due to license restrictions. In some cases, however, those 
restrictions prevent the creation of nice peaces of software which could 
otherwise be created (purhaps, under BSD license).

> Your code is never tainted by the GPL.  You can always keep
> whatever licenses you want for your code.  If you create a derived, combined
> work, that consists of the work of somebody else's GPL code and your own,
> then this combined work is subject to the terms of the GPL.  But such a
> combined work is not *YOUR* source anymore, it is the combination of yours
> and other people's work.  You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too.
> Sorry, but the goal of Free Software is not to make hoarders happier.
> The GPL provides a mutual agreement of sharing.  We share, you share,
> that's the deal.  The deal is not, we give, you take.  (This "you" is
> impersonal.  I don't mean necessarily you personally, but whoever wants to
> include the code in proprietary software).

I think that this should be considered as a general and very common 
mistake. The distance between `using' some work and `basing' your own 
work on it is unsharp. One may say: GPL conditions _are_ absolutely 
clear. But they are based on some special type of a software design, 
which is very common, but not absolutely neccessary. There are no good 
reasons for forcing GPL for programs that are `linked' with some 
library, while allowing anyone to create some sort of GPL-covered 
utility that acts as some intermediate interface between GPL-covered 
code and proprietary software.

Best regards,
	Max V. Zinal