He's just reiterating that the decision for LGPL vs GPL is important, and
that by choosing the right one at the right time you can be a much larger
benifit to the free software movement.
He also said that it's good some libs are under the LGPL (like glibc). He
never suggested changing anything (you can't change old licences, or
licences when you dont own the copyright).
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Alex Buell wrote:
> I just read an article by RMS in which he is thinking of changing
> libraries over from the LGPL to the GPL. This will have the unwanted
> side-effect of driving commercial interests away from further ports of
> proprietary software (potentially deny these ports' future conversion to
> open source)
>
> RMS's article is at http://linuxtoday.com/stories/2754.html
>
> That man is starting to worry me. If he forces certain critical libraries
> such as glibc into the GPL instead of the current LGPL, it spells deep
> trouble for all.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/