The next step

[Simon Marlow]

Manuel writes:
> I don't think that it is a good idea to specify a license.
> For example, I am convinced that the (L)GPL is the better
> licence for the community.  Incidentally, the GPL is also
> the license of one of the most successful free software
> projects ever - Linux - which is certainly also one of the,
> if not *the* commercially most successful free software
> project.  So, I don't buy this GPL is bad for companies
> propaganda.

It's not propaganda.  The fact is if any of the standard libraries use
the LGPL, then some people will be prevented from using them.  That's
the last thing we want, right?  Now you might argue from a moral
standpoint that the companies that these people work for are basing
their business models on intellectual property and therefore deserve
everything they get, but we're not trying to do open source advocacy
here, we're just trying to put together a set of libraries that everyone
can use.

Maybe it's possible to use a dual license (ie. "pick one of the
following licenses") scheme, but I'm not a license expert.

Cheers,
	Simon

PS. usual employer-related disclaimers apply.