Re: (L)GPL quiz

On Mon, 27 May 2002 16:31, Joerg Mayer wrote:

> just found this on Slashdot:
> http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi

I just took it.  I did not realize the GNU licenses had such control
over other peoples' software.

MILD SPOILER WARNING (for those who want to take the test)

*
*
*
*

----------------

3. Fred wishes to distribute Joan's browser linked to a third-party
module.  The third party module has the following license:

    This code may be freely modified, copied and distributed, so long as
    no fee is charged for it.

Would this violate the GPL?

I said number 4:  No, because the resulting work can still be
distributed for free.

The answer was number 2:  Yes, because the GPL does not allow additional
restrictions to be applied to any part of the code.

Maybe they should have been more explicit.  I think of a module as a
plugin (application is not dependent on it), but they refer to it as if
it is a library (application is dependent on it).

In addition, how does this differ than the GPL?  The GPL requires that
you cannot charge for the code.  The distribution costs may be charged.
This sound like the same restriction.

It shows that GNU licenses control not only the code within but also the
code they touch.  This is just plain wrong (morally).  So what if I link
a GPL application to anything else?  As long as the GNU code is
distributed, what business does the GNU license have affecting the
guidelines of other code?  This is all assuming you are not mixing the
code bases together.

8. FooCorp distributes Frobber linked against an unmodified version of
LibIdo. Does the LGPL require FooCorp to allow users to reverse engineer
Frobber for their own use?

I said no.  I was wrong?!?  I have a strong belief that a library is to
be used, and it should not have any control over the programs that link
against it.  As much as I agree with people having the right to
reverse-engineer, which is allowed in the U.S., I disagree that a
library should have any control outside of its own domain over the code
that links to it.

----------------

I think this just shows that the GNU licenses cannot be trusted.  If
they just stuck to their own code, I would not have to avoid them as an
open source software developer.  It has to be one of the unfriendliest
software licenses.  Microsoft EULAs are probably number one, but that
does not mean that GNU has to compete in this arena.

All software developers should take this quiz before using the (L)GPL in
their code.  They may agree with it, but everyone should be made aware
of the ramifications of using it.

Sean
--------------
[email protected]