On 14/06/2018 09:23 πμ, Matthew R. Trower wrote:
Antonis Tsolomitis <antonis.tsolomi...@gmail.com> writes:
And what people mean by "LGPL is restrictive" ? Restrictive for who?
For any developer touching the code.
Exactly. So when someone says "restrictive" it makes no sense. S/he must say
"restrictive to the developer and permissive to the user".
GPL is not restrictive to the user. And by the way, Gnome, KDE etc
developers
what are they? different species?
Moreover, when CDE was commercial, developers of CDE had full freedom.
Did you see
the project survive or progress ? It was trapped to extinction.
I remember... I bought it and never used it because
it was unusable on the next RedHat release.
I am not a lawyer either. So I have learned a simple thing. To trust FSF
more than anything else
on such issues.
And I dislike binary distribution without the source code and the right
to further modify it.
If for example (I am not sure), MIT allows "binary only" distribution
without releasing the source code
and the right to modify, I am against it.
Antonis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel
