Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Paula Paul" <Paula AT PaulSoftware.com>]

> > For instance, if I use someone's random
> > number generator in my product that solves the problem of 
> > cold fusion, I
> > have to GPL my code, when I got very little value from the 
> > shoulders I stood on.  
> 
> So, in that case, use the LGPL if you're going to use other people's
> libraries in your own proprietary code. I don't see why you're so
> outraged.
>
...  
> There's no jackboot army waiting to
> publish your code after breaking down your door and confiscating your
> computer.

Thank god!  I would hate for other people to see some of the code I've
written before I get a chance to clean it up and comment it...

I'm not really outraged - I've been through this discussion in detail
because of work I'm currently doing, and it has been a learning
experience (so I do know a little about the GPL and LGPL, I just enjoy
the debate).

Two things happened to me relatively recently that made me start to
wonder if the existence of the GPL and LGPL has really done the software
industry any good.  I don't have the answer, but I do run into many
people who think the GPL and LGPL are boons to software developers, and
I have my doubts-

1) I'm a contractor (software for hire) - and had a potential client ask
me to what degree I had worked on source code covered by the GPL.  I
don't have much if any exposure to source code covered by the GPL, but I
wondered if it would have impacted my ability to get that job!  The
potential client was trying to make sure their product source code could
remain proprietary and did not want to 'pollute' it.  Maybe they didn't
fully understand the GPL and/or LGPL, but it made me think.

2) I was invited to a Microsoft .NET lab recently, and our team needed
to explain our technical issues to the Microsoft development team.
Before we got started, the developer from Microsoft said "I have to ask
you not to show us any code that is covered under GPL or LGPL".  It
seems that the legalities of the GPL and LGPL are sufficiently murky
such that the Microsoft guys don't want to risk that someone (jack
booted or no ;-)) will come after them to publish their source code.

As a developer, these two incidents made my life more complicated, not
better.  It's not what people typically think of when you ask them their
opinion of 'free software', so I just wanted to offer a different point
of view as food for thought.

I do think the spirit of the GPL is good - I don't think someone should
take the emacs code and build a "proprietary" emacs.  But it's hard to
come up with good rules for protecting source code that you essentially
put in the public domain.  The existence of the LGPL is proof that
something's not quite right in the system.  

Ok, I'll stop now, honest.
-Paula