From: Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@...>
Date: 2006-02-02T07:21:36+09:00
Subject: Re: ANN: WSS4R was released

On 2/1/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
]
> That said, I also don't have a problem with a licence that carries
> restrictions similar to the GNU GPL. I just wish the damned preamble
> weren't part of the GNU GPL. Just give me a licence that does what the
> GNU GPL does without the pseudo-political nonsense, and I might use it
> as it's appropriate. (FWIW, I am of the opinion that the GNU LGPL is a
> wholly worthless licence, and feel that the MPL and its derivatives
> accomplish the same thing as the GNU GPL in a much better manner.)


I am again, a proponent of the preamble, but I believe there is a GPL
style license out there without the preamble, I forget what it was
called.

The GPL was designed to make a social and political stance, and
removing the ethical concerns emasculates the purpose of the GPL,
whether you agree with it's ideals or not.

The GNU LGPL is worthless.  Even the FSF[1] concedes to that.
A disjunctive licensing scheme is a much better approach, if avoiding
the direct assertion of copyleft is desirable.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html