[lwip-users] Re: Re: [lwip] Should LwIP go (L)GPL ?

[M. R. Brown]

--uh9ZiVrAOUUm9fzH
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Paul Sheer <address@hidden> on Fri, Oct 18, 2002:

> I believe the post below misunderstands the issues
> completely.
>=20
[...]
>=20
> The GPL license forces changes to be submitted,
> but also forces any code that links with LwIP
> to also be free. Companies would not be allowed
> to create applications based on LwIP and keep
> those applications secret from their competetors.
> Hence, practically no company would be interested
> in this.
>=20
> The LGPL also forces changes to be submitted,
> but allows code to be linked that is proprietary.
> So a company can use LwIP and still keep its
> applications secret that link with LwIP.
>=20

This is a common misconception with the *GPL.  GPL/LGPL does _not_ force
you to submit your modifications upstream.  You only have to provide source
if it is requested AND only to those who you distribute the binary to.
If Company A modifies lwIP directly and never distributes the application
externally, guess what?  You won't see their changes (and there's nothing to
force them to give them to you).  Even if Company A sells a modified
GPL/LGPL lwIP to Company B, Company B is _not_ obligated to give you those
modifications either.

Sorry to jump into this off-topic useless thread, but I see far too many
mis{representations,understandings} of the *GPL these days.

M. R.

--uh9ZiVrAOUUm9fzH
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9sGSvaK6pP/GNw0URAu9sAJ0ZNe7ApKd04uLfTZYoOm3KluabQQCeJyCH
1pAnmW5BIe4hTzKnUWis1io=
=ny03
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--uh9ZiVrAOUUm9fzH--
[This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]