> * [Mikhael Goikhman]
> | I would like to hear your comments about the project and its first
> | public release in particular.
>
> I think it would be a good idea to use the LGPL instead of the GPL for
> this package. Using the GPL would prohibit the use of it in
> proprietary packages as I understand the GPL. Unless this is
> intentional, I'd propose to use the LGPL instead.
I wonder whether we want this? If a proprietary package wants to use
these free icons, they will either have to ensure that their package
does not actually depend upon the icons, but the icons in wm-icons are
just a nice addition to the proprietary package which a user can
choose to add on should they wish, or they will have to release their
package under the GPL or similar free license.
The LGPL (currently being renamed "The Lesser General Public Licence")
was only created for such things as libc which would not have been
used at all if they couldn't be used by non-free software. I do not
see the same argument at all for the wm-icons distribution; after all,
the FVWM distribution will probably (if it hasn't already) remove all
of the icons from itself, and instead recommend wm-icons. There: you
already have a nice user base. If, however, FVWM had a license which
said "no non-free software may be run under this window manager", then
(almost) noone would use FVWM, which would be ludicrous and
self-defeating. The cases are not similar.
So I strongly propose remaining with the full GPL.
Julian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey_at_qmw.ac.uk
Debian GNU/Linux Developer. jdg_at_debian.org
-*- Finger jdg_at_master.debian.org for my PGP public key. -*-
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
Received on Tue Apr 13 1999 - 06:04:29 BST