4 ms·
It is really unfortunate that a library is licensed under the GPL. It means any released software that uses this also has be GPL, which restricts the freedom of
by antoncohen 9y ago
It is really unfortunate that a library is licensed under the GPL. It means any released software that uses this also has be GPL, which restricts the freedom of the downstream developer from making their own software be licensed under their preferred license. This library calls out to the gpg binary, so there is no reason it has to be GPL.
- lksewpnseiq 9y agoYes, that is the whole point...
- eriknstr 9y agoFor a library LGPL would be a better choice than GPL.
- tanderson92 9y agoEvidently not, as the author of the library chose GPL.
- eriknstr 9y agoAny time someone makes a choice, that is automatically the correct choice. It never happens that someone makes a choice, like what license to use, because they are only familiar with a subset of all choices, or because they have been misinformed or have misunderstood something. Right?
- tanderson92 9y agoRight, it is better to speculate without evidence that the author made a mistake rather than rest on the default position that what they did is what they knowingly intended.
- tuxxy 9y agoThe FSF recommends the GPL for libraries now.
- tanderson92 9y agoExactly. The GPL protects freedom exceptionally well as you have noticed.
- slgeorge 9y agoLicense choice is about the goals of the author. It can be complex, but as a simplification: * Goal: Maximise software using my component: one of the BSD's. Rationale: anyone can build on it or fork it. * Goal: Maximise contribution to the component OR total amount of Free Software: Choose one of the GPLs. Rationale: everyone has to share the same responsibilities to go with the rights. As someone else pointed out - LGPL for libraries is a middle choice. Ultimately, only the creator chooses the goal.