From miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx Received: (qmail 15614 invoked from network); 1 Feb 1999 22:48:33 -0000 Received: from mail.redhat.com (199.183.24.239) by lists.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 1999 22:48:33 -0000 Received: from metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx (miguel@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx [132.248.29.92]) by mail.redhat.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA22031 for <gnome-list@gnome.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:42:13 -0500 Received: (from miguel@localhost) by metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx (8.8.7/8.8.7) id QAA07098; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 16:43:36 -0600 Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 16:43:36 -0600 Message-Id: <199902012243.QAA07098@metropolis.nuclecu.unam.mx> From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel@nuclecu.unam.mx> To: gnome-list@gnome.org Subject: [rms@gnu.org: Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library] X-Windows: There's got to be a better way. ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 05:25:44 -0500 From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> To: info-gnu@gnu.org Subject: Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library Reply-to: rms@gnu.org [Please repost and forward this article widely, wherever it is appropriate.] Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library -- Richard Stallman The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is the GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs. Which license is best for a given library is a matter of strategy, and it depends on the details of the situation. At present, most GNU libraries are covered by the Library GPL, and that means we are using only one of these two strategies, neglecting the other. So we are now seeking more libraries to release *under the ordinary GPL*. Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it. Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Library GPL for that library. This is why we used the Library GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another--no problem for them, only for us. However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, like GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different color. The Readline library implements input editing and history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real boost. At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline. If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that have no parallel available to proprietary software, they will provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free programs. This will be a significant advantage for further free software development, and some projects will decide to make software free in order to use these libraries. University projects can easily be influenced; nowadays, as companies begin to consider making software free, even some commercial projects can be influenced in this way. Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all. But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition. Since the name "Library GPL" conveys the wrong idea about this question, we are planning to change the name to "Lesser GPL." Actually implementing the name change may take some time, but you don't have to wait--you can release GPL-covered libraries now. ------- End of forwarded message -------