Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Oct 2005 11:44 UTC
Permalink for comment 47114
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:39 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 19:39 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 11:43 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-10-13
If there is a LSB for GPL adn a LSB for LGPL then I don't see a future for it. I find LSB atractive cause the not strings attached.
You're misunderstanding. There would be 1 LSB which would have LGPL for everything, but some optional alternatives with other licenses. Why is this so useful? Because it allows the programmer a choice. If they don't want to use any GPL code, then they don't have to. But if they want to use libraries that have more features and don't care about the license, then they are allowed to do that as well. Your way forces people to care about the license even if they don't want to. Allowing both would let people who care about the license to use what they want, and everyone else could use what they want.