[Mono-list] - C# / OpenGL and System.Windows.Forms on

Freddy BL freddy_bl@hotmail.com
Thu, 06 Feb 2003 14:57:28 +0000

>Could you please explain *why* you think the GPL is not acceptable
>for libraries?
>The GPL is one of the most widely used Free Software licenses.

Yes. But not for libraries.
And _if_ it is used for libraries, it have special extensions for linking 
(like GNU-Classpath: http://www.classpath.org)
But it seems, that both (Qt# and MonoGLo) don't have this extensions.

>The LGPL license is known as the *lesser* license
>and was created for strategic reasons

And why existing this "strategic reasons" not for Qt# or MonoGLo?

>not because of any principle that 'libraries should be free
>for proprietary developers'.  Do you wish to create proprietary
>software with MonoGlo?

No. And I am not a programmer.
1. there existing more OpenSource-licenses then GPL. And the most are 
incompatible to the GPL. So it is not possible to create programs under the 
Mozilla Public License or Artistic License, if they are based on Qt# or 
2. the same "strategic reasons", which exists for the LGPL-programs.
Would the complete GNU/Linux under the GPL (with X-Windows, GNOME, etc), 
there would no company creating their proprietary software for this system. 
So you have a system, which only GPL-programs have. And that is very less. 
And that ends, that the number of GNU/Linux-Users are less, too. But because 
the libraries of GNU/Linux are not under the GPL, there existing so much 
programs for it.
The same applies to libraries of the mono/pnet/.net-platform.

But if you prefer the GPL for your libraries, I accept it. But it restricts 
unnecessarily the number of programs, which are based on it.
And it restricts unnecessarily the currency of Qt#

Btw: With your GPL-library, you go the GPL-way more strict, then the FSF. 
All libraries, what you can find under www.gnu.org, are LGPL or GPL with 
special extensions.
Show me _one_ stand-allone-library on www.gnu.org, which completly under the 
GPL licensed is.

And TrollTech have put Qt under the GPL _and_ QPL. And if you want to use it 
in proprietary programs, you can buy a special license.
But can firms buy a special license of Qt# from you?

And though Qt is not under the LGPL, the KDE-team itself put their libraries 
under the LGPL. What do you think why they do this?

But if you prefer the GPL for libraries, I accept it. But I don't like the 
GPL for it.


Messenger  -  Wer in Echtzeit kommunizieren will, lädt den MSN Messenger. 
Cool, kostenlos und mit 3D Emoticons:  http://messenger.msn.de