critic
> Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs
That means "in some cases", not "in all cases". Logical fallacy on your part.
> ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs
Here, GPL'ers contradict themselves (for both senses of "free"). GPL code can, technically, be non-gratis. And GPL code can be used in non-GPL programs (you just can't distribute them easily).
We'd be using OS X and FreeBSD instead of Linux. Who's laughing now?
I never said I was. In the GNU utopia, Linux killed MS and all libraries are GPL.
My options are:
1. Spend years writing apps that help cure cancer, GPL them and starve. (not exactly hypothetical)
2. Develop some Web apps that are not bound by GPL. Make money.
What do you think I will choose in your GNU communist utopia?
The fact that your understanding of the license is different shows just how sneaky and obfuscated LGPL is.
If I have to release my code under GPL, I can't make money charging thousands for it (low volume type of app). If I can't make money from it, I won't spend years developing it. Not having the app would make it harder for some pharma scientist somewhere to cure cancer. Everyone loses. Communism doesn't work.
Ten lines per function, per header, per library, per program?
Edit: I think you didn't understand LGPL yourself either. I think in the quoted lines, "object code" refers to your code, and accompanying them with a copy of GPL refers to having to release your code under GPL. Or do you think you only have to say you release it under GPL and not actually release it?
In my opinion, all software should be free, when all groceries are free.
You have to know how many lines from the header file you are "distributing" (in the GNU lingo). If you are using C++ templates, you are probably screwed. You have to make sure you link dynamically (or else). LGPL seems to require advertising the library. And if you want do static linking, talk to a lawyer. Linus and RMS disagree on what constitutes "derived work", btw.
Edit: I'd like to know what motivated people to upmod parent, when it's factually incorrect and can cost developers dearly if they take the message at face value.
Are they? If there are 9 synchronized channels and 1 that's not. I believe that 1 wins, because everyone else switches there out of boredom.
Do you mean they used their blog as the main marketing effort? I'd like to hear more about those.
It seems if the users are looking at your blog, they've found you already. Or perhaps those companies created thousands of other blogs that were only used for search engine optimization (linking back to their money blog)? That I can understand.
Not anymore?
Perhaps it's a combination of many factors: tips, commission, weather, culture, religion and guns that makes Americans nice (For the record, I'm not religious)