Add DRAFT note.

[adns] / GPL-vs-LGPL

NB that NO VERSIONS of this file have been released, and I do not
intend yet to publish this version.  If you get an old version of this
file from my CVS repository definitely do not intend the licence
exceptions in it to apply - these too were drafts, as you should know
if you know what retreiving old CVS versions means !

  - Ian Jackson, 2nd March 2000.

DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

              GPL vs LGPL, in the context of adns
              -----------------------------------

Several people have asked me to release adns under the GNU Lesser
General Public Licence (LGPL, formerly the Library GPL) instead of the
`stronger' GPL.  This file is intended to answer most of these
questions.  If you still have questions or comments, please mail me at
<adns-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk>.

Typically there are two or three kinds of situation where people make
this request: the first is where someone is developing a proprietary
program and wishes to make use of adns but doesn't wish to make their
program free software.  The second case is where a free software
project is currently using an MIT-like licence or the LGPL and fear
`GPL infection'.  The third case, which often overlaps with the
second, is where another free software project currently using a
GPL-incompatible licence, wishes to use adns.


1. Proprietary applications of adns
-----------------------------------

So, let me get this straight.  You're writing a proprietary
program, by which I mean that you will not be distributing source code
and not allowing users to modify and share your software; most likely
you are doing this for your own (personal or corporate) financial
gain.

However, you want to take advantage of adns, software which I have
spent my time and effort on, and which I release as free software so
that everyone can improve, share and use it.

Don't you think that is a little hypocritical ?  I'm sorry, but I
don't want you to just take my nice convenient software, without
giving something back to the free software community or giving the
same rights to your users as I do to you.

If you really aren't the nasty kind of person I've described here, for
example if you have a good reason other than your own selfishness for
wanting to restrict distribution of your program, then perhaps you
should contact me to discuss it.


2. GPL-avoiding projects (MIT licence, et al)
---------------------------------------------

Some free software projects prefer to avoid the GPL and other licences
which force the software always to be free.  Instead they use
something like the MIT X licence, which allows proprietary versions of
their software, or the in the case of some free libraries, the LGPL,
which allows proprietary applications.  I have to say that I think
these people are misguided, but that doesn't mean that they don't have
a perfect right to.

Some of these people think that merely writing to an interface
provided by GPL'd software will cause their program to become GPL'd
too, even if they don't distribute the GPL'd software.  I don't think
this is the case.  I'm perfectly happy for non-GPL'd software to refer
to adns in its source code.  However, I think that exectuables (or
compiled libraries) which contain or are dynamically linked against
adns must be GPL'd; likewise executable programs (whether compiled or
in an interpreted language) which require utilities from adns to
function properly must be GPL'd.

So, you can distribute your non-GPL'd program source which needs adns
to compile, but people who wish to distribute binaries must do so
under the terms of the GNU GPL.  This may make sense for some
GPL-avoiding free software projects; people can still make proprietary
programs from your code, provided that they make some provision to
replace adns with something whose copyright allows proprietary
versions.

However, this doesn't make much sense for the authors of LGPL'd
libraries.  All I can say to them is to ask which is more important:
that their library be well-constructed and use all the best technology
available as free software, or whether it is worth degrading quality
of their library in order to allow proprietary programs to use it !

To help the case of LGPL'd libraries for which adns is not a vital
component - for example, a library which provides access to other
libraries so that programs which use it need only use certain parts,
I have release adns.h (just the public header file) under the LGPL as
well as the GPL.  See the copyright notice in adns.h for details.
Note that this will not help you if it adns is essential to the
functioning of your library, because all programs using your library
must link against both your library and adns and so must be GPL'd.


For some information and views from the Free Software Foundation on
free software licensing, visit:

 Various licenses and comments about them
  at http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/license-list.html

 Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library
  at http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html


3. GPL-incompatible free software licences
------------------------------------------

Regrettably, there are a number of free software licences (and
semi-free licences) in existence which are not compatible with the
GPL.  That is, they impose restrictions which are not present in the
GPL, and therefore distributing a whole work which contains such a
program and a GPL'd program is not possible: either the work would
have to be distributed under the GPL (violating the restrictions made
by the original author), or under the GPL-incompatible licence
(violating the GPL).

I may be prepared to make exceptions for such a licence.  Please
contact me at <adns-maint@chiark.greenend.org.uk> with the full text
of the GPL-incompatible licence.  However, I would prefer it if you
could use a GPL-compatible licence for your project instead.

--- Ian Jackson ...

DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT

Local variables:
mode: text
End: