Re: Sorry to ask this, license question

[Miles Bader <miles@...>]

steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@gmail.com> writes:
> _Only_ thing that puzzles me is the gratuitous use of GPL where LGPL
> would have been a superior choice for library licensing. (For programs
> it's fine because we have popen ;))

In some cases, it seems due to people simply not thinking about
licensing and just using whatever their "default" is.  If they've
written apps before (where the GPL is best suited), that default might
be the GPL.

A significant case where it's intentional seems to be companies that
want to sell commercial licenses to non-FOSS users: they just dual
license their library under the GPL and some other more proprietary
license.  E.g. when QT adopted the GPL, I think that's the reason they
used it instead of the LGPL; I've also noticed other commercial
libraries doing the same thing, though the names don't come to mind
immediately.

-miles

-- 
Consult, v.i. To seek another's disapproval of a course already decided on.