Re: gEDA-user: LGPL symbols vs. GPL symbols?

["Samuel A. Falvo II" <sam.falvo@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/5/05, DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> While the LGPL was designed for code, IMHO the way the LGPL would
> apply to symbols would be that you'd have to provide a way to replace
> a single symbol in a project even if you can't replace the others.
> Since that doesn't happen with gEDA tools (you can always replace
> symbols) I don't think the LGPL would be useful.

Your explanation makes absolutely no sense to me.  What does replacing
a symbol have to do with anything?  Can you please explain this more
clearly?

> Note also that the FSF recommends you NOT use the LGPL unless you
> absolutely have to.  The GPL is a cleaner license, and more accurately
> reflects the goals of free software.

While it may reflect the goals of what it perceives as "free
software," it absolutely doesn't reflect the goals of "pure freedom"
nearly as well.  By that I mean, I want to be able to use the part in
a design I sell closed-source or commercially, relatively
unencumbered, without having to always have to disclose every detail
of the product being sold.  While I personally won't likely do this,
someone who uses gEDA might.

Moreover, I don't see why/how a license can apply to a *symbol*
anyway.  A symbol is, like a letter or a number, just a graphical
rendering of a *concept*.  It may be trademarked (for the style of
rendering), but *licensed*?  That doesn't make any logical sense. 
This is why I completely object to the idea of "commercial fonts,"
where you need a license to use them.  WTF?  Once it's printed on a
piece of paper, and your license expires, does that mean you have to
burn each piece of paper that uses that font?  Stupid, stupid, stupid.

You know what?  Forget it.  From this point forward, my 65816, 6522,
and 7805 designs are hereby placed in the *public domain*.  The
schematics that they may be placed into may be licensed arbitrarily,
as per the desires of the company responsible for the drawing.

BTW, note that FSF doesn't recommend the use of GNU license for
hardware designs either, equally claiming that GPL is intended more
for real software, and not so much for hardware.  Stallman objects to
the use of GPL for hardware.  In this regard, perhaps my use of
Creative Commons license is the correct choice for the Kestrel as a
whole.

Now, I'm not trying to be confrontational -- nor am I intending to
start a license war.  I'm just seriously trying to think this through,
because I don't want to have to rethink this stuff over and over again
in the future.  :)

> Also, if you mix GPL and LGPL symbols in a project, the LGPL ones
> effectively become GPL anyway.

No, they remain LGPL.  I've seen plenty of projects that were "mixed
license," where the core of a program was LGPL, but specific add-ons
to it (even those that shipped with it) that were considered
"standard" were GPLed.  Also, the reverse has been observed as well,
where some core functionality was GPLed, and modules shipped with it
are LGPL.  That's the beauty of LGPL -- though its name indicates it
is the "lesser" of the two licenses, the reality is, "less is more."

--
Samuel A. Falvo II