undefined | Better HN

0 pointsMacha2y ago0 comments

No, this would undermine the entire point of the GPL. The compatibility is one way.

In an extremely simplified version, LGPL says you can only use the software if you guarantee A and B, while GPL says you can only use the software if you guarantee A, B, and C. Since {A,B} is a subset of {A,B,C}, licensing the LGPL software under something that requires A, B, and C guarantees A and B and so is fine by the LGPL. However, since the LGPL doesn't require you to guarantee C, then licensing software under the LGPL will not maintain all the requirements you must maintain to use GPL software.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

pyeri2y ago

Good point. I think it's a good thing in some way as it will force the downstream (or end user) of that library to also go GPL and not a non-free license. I think more and more software should be produced as FOSS anyway and we should move there using both advocacy and FOSS licensing.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse