[libre-riscv-dev] kazan | Dual license (#6)

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html

The obligations are to make it possible for someone to replace the version
of the library that the proprietary executable supplier has provided.

If someone makes that difficult to do, by linking statically, thus ensuring
that the user's task is made that much harder to perform an upgrade or
replace Kazan with a version of THEIR choosing, why should the user be
punished?

Why should we punish users by making it difficult for them to upgrade or
replace Kazan with a version that they trust, instead of the version that
someone else provided in binary form and says "hey you can trust us"?

What about when a program is supplied in binary form, and the Kazan library
is linked dynamically with its dependencies but is itself statically linked
into the proprietary executable? What if the user CANNOT GET the dynamic
dependencies because their system is newer than the proprietary binary only
release?

There is no obligation to release the source code of the combined work
under the LGPL, that is not the issue.

The recommended MIT or BSD licenses are just a lazy way out (sorry Tom),
that would result in proprietary Corporations spongeing yet again off of
our time and efforts.

The LGPL obligations are there for extremely good reasons: to protect users
and also to protect this project from Corporate spongeing.

If Corporations want exemptions they can pay a fair royalty for an
alternative license.

L.



-- 
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68