GPL considered what?

[Tollef Fog Heen]

* Eric Dunbar 

| Most GPL restrictions are OK, but I have to say that I find a few
| quite disagreeable for a licencing scheme that claims to be "free"
| (of course, it is those who shout loudest that define "free"
| ;-). You cannot link to proprietary libraries from what I
| understand, nor can you redistribute modified binaries without
| having to disclose all changes. The second one isn't that
| problematic, but the first I disagree with. If a proprietary
| library/app/whatever provides the best solution, "free" software
| should not be prevented from using the best solution (even if the
| source code is unavailable), provided that, at the very least, the
| binary is guaranteed to be publicly available.

That is what you believe is right or correct.  You are free to license
your software under terms which gives you this.  (It sounds like the
LGPL would fit.)  Others think that free software should have the
advantage of being able to benefit from a library and therefore
license their libraries under the GPL.  This gives them an advantage
over proprietary software which the authors believe is a good thing.
Disagreeing with that is fine, but there is no right or wrong here.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen                                                        ,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are      : :' :
                                                                      `. `' 
                                                                        `-