🚀 go-pugleaf

   Date: 22 Jun 91 00:17:21 GMT
   From: craig@netcom.COM (Craig Hansen)

   In article <1991Jun19.141134.19083@dg-rtp.dg.com>, wood@gen-rtx.rtp.dg.com (Tom Wood) writes:
   > I'm trying to get a handle on the GLGPL.  In particular, would
   > building and using a shared version of libg++ be a simple way to meet
   > the terms of the GLGPL.  As I see it, an application vendor could, by
   > using a shared libg++, not have to do *anything* different in the way
   > he does business.  The users can get the sources to the library,
   > modifiy it, and not have to deal with the executables that use it in
   > any fasion.

That was exactly my intention when I wrote the first draft.  I think
the explict clause to this effect was dropped in the interest of
making it more general, but certainly dynamically-linked libraries can
trivially satisfy the agreement (just make sure the lib source is
available too!).

This makes it painless to implement the LGPL conditions and also
painless for users to reap the benefits.

   Unfortunately, the use of shared libraries makes it virtually impossible
   to enforce per-cpu or per-network copying restrictions commonly used
   by software hoarders. I have brought this up with RMS in the past,
   but he is more interested in persuing the goals of freeing software
   directly than in making what he perceives as a concession to
   convince computer manufacturers to incorporate GLGPL code....
   I believe that GNU will succeed by demonstrating that free
   software, by better incorporating the best efforts of many
   people, is of superior value than hoarded software.

I don't understand the point you're making.  Presumably even
proprietary apps want to use dynamic linking; whether they get their
libs that way or not does not affect what they do to "protect"
software.

And the FSF's aim is to get people to use only nonproprietary
software.  The lib license is an experiment: if it gets more people to
contribute changes, and if it gets more users to understand the
benefits of free software, and therefore demand more freedom from
their software suppliers, then the concession have succeeded.

But I don't see how this contrasts with what you said.  It seems
you're in agreement with the Foundation...