Sr Systems Engineer – AIX (TX) Next Step Systems US-TX-Houston Post A Job | Post A Resume

When the General Public License should be preferred to the Library General Public License.

The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is the GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs.

Which license is best for a given library is a matter of strategy, and it depends on the details of the situation. At present, most GNU libraries are covered by the Library GPL, and that means we are using only one of these two strategies, neglecting the other. So we are now seeking more libraries to release *under the ordinary GPL*.

Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it.

Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Library GPL for that library.

This is why we used the Library GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another--no problem for them, only for us.

However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different color. The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline.

If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free software development, and some projects will decide to make software free in order to use these libraries. University projects can easily be influenced; nowadays, as companies begin to consider making software free, even some commercial projects can be influenced in this way.

Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.

But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition.

Since the name "Library GPL" conveys the wrong idea about this question, we are planning to change the name to "Lesser GPL." Actually implementing the name change may take some time, but you don't have to wait--you can release GPL-covered libraries now.

Index Mode   |   Flat Mode   |   Thread Mode   |   Thread Flat     Talkback(s) Name  and Date   LGPL    Tim Hanson Feb 1, 1999, 21:47:05     Yes and No - think again.    Heikki Vesalainen Feb 1, 1999, 23:56:52     Re: LGPL    Kurt Van Delden Feb 2, 1999, 00:12:47     Bof....    Raphael Bauduin Feb 2, 1999, 01:57:42     what about free software?    Till Schneidereit Feb 2, 1999, 04:08:06     Small developers and LGPL    Antonie Fourie Feb 2, 1999, 05:24:22     Beware!    Tom Dunstan Feb 2, 1999, 06:24:25     Also remember...    Roberto Alsina Feb 2, 1999, 06:33:02     LGPL    Jerry Can Feb 2, 1999, 08:21:28     LGPL is inclusive: GPL is exclusive    Alan DeKok Feb 2, 1999, 09:10:06     GPL    Joshua Spodek Feb 2, 1999, 10:48:36     Free Software    Daniel Joyce Feb 2, 1999, 11:04:44     Free software    chris Procter Feb 2, 1999, 11:58:02     Re: Free software    StanK Feb 2, 1999, 12:45:22     Freedom    Pete Eggers Feb 2, 1999, 13:17:10     Yes, Gtk+ LGPL was a mistake    P.Emsley Feb 2, 1999, 13:18:11     bad timing    x Feb 4, 1999, 16:32:17     LGPL    Charles Esson Feb 2, 1999, 20:27:16     was LGPL a good move for GTK? You bet!    STEB Feb 3, 1999, 01:36:37     LGPL    Henrik Olsen Feb 3, 1999, 07:38:38     Use of libraries != derived work.    Matthias Welwarsky Feb 3, 1999, 08:54:05     Free Software Mindset    Russell McOrmond Feb 4, 1999, 12:59:14     The LGPL is very effective    Pascal Martin Feb 3, 1999, 10:49:58     Church of RMS    Mark Hahn Feb 3, 1999, 11:31:16     Re: Church of RMS    David Allen Feb 3, 1999, 20:53:52     RMS's fundamental mistake    Morgan Schweers Feb 3, 1999, 22:27:02     Is it a moot point? and why do we use free sof    Jim Belton Feb 4, 1999, 02:09:59     disagree with Richard    Brett Bazant Feb 4, 1999, 08:29:39     Keep your FAITH, open your heart    Michael Fan Feb 4, 1999, 10:32:52     Re: RMS's fundamental mistake    Harald Milz Feb 4, 1999, 10:49:29     GPL'd SW is NOT free SW.    Anon O. Mouse Feb 4, 1999, 11:17:14     But...it's backwards    Kurt Fitzner Feb 4, 1999, 18:11:23     Re: But...it's backwards    Robert Thomson Feb 5, 1999, 05:10:25     Public Domain software is free??    Andrew Cady Feb 5, 1999, 15:13:31     Re: Public Domain software is free??    Matt Kennel Feb 5, 1999, 16:32:56     Re: Public Domain software is free??    Robert Thomson Feb 6, 1999, 00:44:11     Richard is not correct    Brett Bazant Feb 7, 1999, 16:35:55     GPL problems    Zygo Blaxell Feb 7, 1999, 23:04:26     Stuff and nonsense    Tim Seufert Feb 8, 1999, 18:29:42     Free as in beer?    Sam Liddicott Feb 10, 1999, 12:07:44     No free lunch (TM), Richard IS correct (you morons    Marc Fleury Feb 11, 1999, 12:52:55     Burning bridges    Tom Hull Mar 23, 1999, 12:46:14     RMS - Fellow of the Royal College of -DELETED- Dis    Warren Postma Jul 11, 1999, 18:52:05     Re: Free software    Samantha Atkins Dec 31, 1999, 10:20:58     Home | Search Talkbacks | Customize View    Top of Page   Enter your comments below: * Your Name: * Your Email Address: * Subject: CC: [will also send this talkback to an E-Mail address] * Comments: Tags allowed:<I>,<B> and <U>. See our talkback-policy for more about talkback content. Fields marked with * are required!