GPLv2 Libraries — Is There a Point? 585
PiSkyHi writes "I understand that if I build an application that links with a library that is licensed under GPLv2, I must also make my application GPL2. I can see that value in this for an application. But for a library, what's to stop me separating my program into a GPLv2-compliant client app that talks to the rest of my (choose my own license) application?"
Re:GPL Fanatics (Score:3, Funny)
There is nothing wrong with you not using my code if you do not like my conditions, either...
Use GPL for Free Software. If you want to give us Code With Conditions, I recommend the MS-PL.
Re:GPL Fanatics (Score:1, Funny)
That's because GPL code is only "free as in gratis" (you do not have to pay anything to get the source code). Whereas BSD/MIT and other alike code is free as in freedom.
That's a long standing concern (Score:3, Funny)
I wrote the LGPL v1 and badgered RMS into allowing it (John Gilmore thought up the great dynamic linking clause). RMS's biggest objection back then was exactly the case you give.
I still think in the balance the library license is a net positive for the FSF's cause. But this hinges on the definition of a "derivative work"