Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

[Alexander Terekhov]

Lee Hollaar wrote:
[...]
> That explains why a statically-linked program with a GPLed
> library requires it to be GPL (there is a compilation being
> distributed) 

Both Rosen and Dixon disagree (Dixon: "I agree with every 
point Larry states" ;-) ).

<quote url=http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:8400>

If you want your license to reach beyond derivative works to 
something more in the nature of collective works -- no matter 
how trivial or complex the technical process of doing so -- 
then go ahead and write your non-open-source license to say
so. And be precise about it, which the GPL and LGPL certainly 
aren't.

Let's be candid about what behavior we want to affect by 
our reciprocal licenses. I believe we want to make sure that 
changes, bug fixes and enhancements to our software are 
returned to the commons. But we don't want to discourage the 
use of our open source software in combination with other 
software, proprietary or open. By distinguishing between 
*derivative works* and *collective works* as the copyright 
law itself does, we can better achieve this balance.

</quote>

Note that both GPL and LGPL are approved open-source 
licenses.

regards,
alexander.