Simon Albrecht <[email protected]> writes: > Dear Karsten and list, > > On 22.09.20 22:40, Karsten Reincke wrote: >> 5) I've learned, that all(?) of you consider this an untenable if >> not silly position and that the PDFs and midi-files compiled by >> Lilypond are never affected by the strong copyleft effect of the >> GPL. That's good to hear. But I don't understand, why - under this >> circumstances - it should be garbage to add a respective clarifying >> statement (the 'include clause' or however you want to name it), if >> it is at least partially conceivable that such a position will be >> taken and if all of you do not want to use / establish its >> consequences. But that's my problem. > > > I would like to join in asking this question, namely what’s the reason > not to add such an ‘include clause’? (Am I correct in gathering that > LGPL basically means GPL + such an include clause?)
No, you are not correct. The LGPL has more lenient conditions. It also has a clause that allows it to be replaced by the GPL, and when combining a GPLed work with an LGPLed work to form a common whole, invoking that clause is the only way in which you can arrive at a redistributable whole. The main problem of adding _anything_ to a license of the GPL/LGPL flavor is that the result is incompatible to software licensed under GPL/LGPL without such an addition, defeating the significant goal of interoperability and reusability of the GNU code base. -- David Kastrup
