Licensing in general; LGPL in particular

According to horos:
> well, if glib was used, would that mean the perl source code would
> necessarily need to be GPLed? Where does 'derived works' end?

According to the Debian docs, glib is distributed under the LGPL, the
"{Lesser,Library} GPL".  The LGPL is a lot less trouble than the GPL
for those who want to combine code bases into larger projects.

In my estimation, Perl 6 should be able to use LGPL'd code without
doing irreparable harm to its usability in GPL-hostile areas like,
say, components of large proprietary applications. [1]

On the other hand, Larry's philosophy seems to be much less GPL or
even LGPL than it is X/BSD.  I paraphase: "Use this however you like.
If you don't immediately donate to the pool of free software, that's
OK with me.  You'll do it when you're ready." [2]

On the gripping hand, part of the big deal with the Perl 6 project is
reengineering of both the code *and* the community.  So if LGPL'd code
would spare us huge troubles and headaches, I'd be inclined to use it.
(But re-using bad code would be a huge mistake.  So let's be cautious.)

[1] I suggest that detailed and/or theoretical discussions of
    legalities belongs elsewhere -- say, gnu.misc.discuss.  I think
    it is OK to keep talking about licenses, as long as we're broadly
    discussing what to use and why, and not just playing lawyer with
    license terms.

[2] I have no problem with authors choosing the GPL.  I do have a
    problem with people pressuring authors to choose _only_ the GPL.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg              - a.k.a. -              <[email protected]>
"I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence,
    but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early."  // MST3K