[I already replied privately before I realized this was also posted to the mailing list, so I'll just repeat my main point.]
Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, I don't think a vague worry about RMS going loopy should outweigh the > concrete, immediate, and demonstrable disadvantages of doing this. My position is that "or any future version" is a moral disadvantage, which outweighs all technical concerns. The package in question is LGPLed not because I want it to be, but because it is required; I have put a lot of work into rewriting my code, deliberately turning away contributions, so that I can free it of that restriction and put it under a more reasonable, MIT-like license. (That will happen in a matter of weeks. Or perhaps tonight, since I'm in the right frame of mind to do the last bit of repackaging work.) If the FSF changes the LGPL in ways I disagree with (as seems very likely), explicitly saying "or any other future version" is, in effect, an endorsement of those future changes. I am unwilling to endorse, or directly license my code under, some random future FSF-spawned license just because it happens to be called "LGPL" -- I simply don't agree with the FSF on licensing policy, and I don't trust them not to make changes I would consider offensive. I would rather have my code be completely unusable, than willingly license it in a way I disagree with. (Yes, I know that if my code is MIT-licensed, it can be used in a LGPL project. That's perfectly fine with me; my work is not affected by that.) --Rob -- Rob Tillotson N9MTB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
