Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on December 23, 2004 08:49 AM
The GPL and LGPL (some prefer LGPL for APIs or libraries) are partner licences that can be used as appropriate to define different levels of freedom. In the case of the GPL (specifically), it defines, what you are not restricted in doing, and how this freedom* should be passed on through your publishing any modifications (amongst other things).
The comments about samba and royalties are not specific to the GPL or any other source licence - the question is simply do I have to pay to use an API - if I do this charge will have to be passed on somehow - [The "somehow" in the case of SUSE Linux would be you're payment for the Professional Version which can include "non-free" elements which SUSE is then recharging you for]. Innovative software in my opinion may deserve monetary reward [perhaps through a licensing agreement], but an API really does not deserve a licence fee IMHO and should be royalty free for exactly the purpose most computer manufacturers publish APIs - "Interoperability". End Users want it, Corporate IT Managers want it, the only people who don't are abusive Monopolies and people who haven't enough experience yet - YOU.
Suggest you read up about why the LGPL and GPL have the terms they do, and recent and not so recent skirmishes between Microsoft, and anyone who attempts to innovate around their products, or further "Open Standards for interoperability". You might like to start with Microsofts DOS/Windows APIs and attempts to break other software which used them, or Microsofts recent attempts to introduce patented standards into Internet Email. If they were interested in "Open standards for interoperability" concerning email then they should have registered their "suggestions" in a way in which they could make no future demands of the "Users" of their brilliant email suggestions.
I suggest you read the terms of the LGPL and if you're still hungry, the GPL, so that you can express which terms you think make neither of them a "reasonable license" for an API.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:That's a uniquely GPL issue...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 23, 2004 08:49 AMThe comments about samba and royalties are not specific to the GPL or any other source licence - the question is simply do I have to pay to use an API - if I do this charge will have to be passed on somehow - [The "somehow" in the case of SUSE Linux would be you're payment for the Professional Version which can include "non-free" elements which SUSE is then recharging you for]. Innovative software in my opinion may deserve monetary reward [perhaps through a licensing agreement], but an API really does not deserve a licence fee IMHO and should be royalty free for exactly the purpose most computer manufacturers publish APIs - "Interoperability". End Users want it, Corporate IT Managers want it, the only people who don't are abusive Monopolies and people who haven't enough experience yet - YOU.
Suggest you read up about why the LGPL and GPL have the terms they do, and recent and not so recent skirmishes between Microsoft, and anyone who attempts to innovate around their products, or further "Open Standards for interoperability". You might like to start with Microsofts DOS/Windows APIs and attempts to break other software which used them, or Microsofts recent attempts to introduce patented standards into Internet Email. If they were interested in "Open standards for interoperability" concerning email then they should have registered their "suggestions" in a way in which they could make no future demands of the "Users" of their brilliant email suggestions.
I suggest you read the terms of the LGPL and if you're still hungry, the GPL, so that you can express which terms you think make neither of them a "reasonable license" for an API.
*"freedom" has a fuller explanation here: http://www.fsf.org
#