🚀 go-pugleaf

Here are my 0.02$ worth regarding the new library license.

I don`t think that the license is a good idea, and I am pretty sure
that my company will not use software covered by it. These are really
two separate issues, with different reasons.

The reasons that I don`t think the license is a good idea are:

a) Linking the unmodified binaries of a library are in some sense
   normal use of the library. I view both a programming language and a
   library as a packaged set of functionality. If it is packaged as
   language constructs, macroes, or linkable routines is just an
   implementation issue. In my opinion the licensing requirements
   should not be tied to a particular implementation, but to the
   nature of the free software. Thus I would expect a very
   general-purpose library, such as the C-library, to be regarded the
   same way a language constructs, and thus be freely linkable. On the
   other hand, a library that is essentially a application in parts,
   i.e. that has very specific functionality would be covered by the
   current GPL. The proposed license is somewhere in-between for reasons
   that as far as I can tell are not tied to what seems to be
   reasonable to protect, but to how libraries happen to be implemented.

b) It is in an arbitrary way tied to systems with separate
   compile-link cycle. Again, the license does not seem to be based on
   what level of freedom  versus private work that needs protection,
   but on the technical detail of one way of implementing a
   programming language. What happens in an implementation that doesn't
   allow separate compiling linking? 

c) It protects very little of freedom of the end-user. Again, given
   that a library is packaged functionality, being allowed to change
   that functionality  a very roundabout way of control. It is in
   some way equivalent to requiring C-programs to be delivered in
   parsed form only so that the user can change the meaning of
   language constructs. 
 
To summarize I think that the GPL is sufficient as a license, and that
libraries of "general" nature should have supplemental conditions
stating that including parts of the library unmodified in a product
does not mean that the result will be covered by the GPL. This could
be worded in a separate license, but that doesn't really seem
necessary.

The reason why we (and probably many others) will not use libraries
covered by the library license is more pragmatic. The managers
making such decisions do not want one more thing to do. In their view
you buy something, and then use it in the normal way. To have to 
do one more thing (in this case be able to build the product without
the libraries in a way that allows adding the libraries), for no
apparent reason (nobody will ask for it anyway) simply does not make
sense and will just add to the general feeling that free softwares
should be avoided. I have enough trouble trying to convince users that
there is nothing strange about the software just because it comes from
a free source, that support is available etc. I would not jeopardize
these attempts by trying to get them to understand the rationale behind
the library licensing (especially since I don't really understand it
myself). Even if I could do that, the decision would probably be in favor of
buing something just to avoid one more step in the packaging process.

It short we will buy commercial libraries in source, or get truly free
ones in terms of usage.



--
--
Jan Norden, Ericsson Telecom AB       | E-mail: etxjnor@solsta.ericsson.se
KS/ETX/TX/DK                          | Phone.: +46 54 193168
S-652 21 KARLSTAD                     | Fax...: +46 54 152509
SWEDEN                                | Memo..: ETX.ETXJNOR