Re: Confused about LGPL terms - can you help?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Let's not be like Alex and argue legal semantics. The way that the
   GPL is structured creates a situation where the monetary value of
   distributed software tends to work its way towards $0.

This has nothing to do with semantics, a license that does not allow
being used in commercial products is not a free software licenese and
thus is not acceptable.  There is no semantics involved, just freedom.
The GPL, LGPL, and _any_ free software can be used in commercial
products.

   So to say that GPL software can be used commercially in the same
   mode as traditional closed source commercial software is
   disingenuous.

Much if not all (I do not keep track which program subjugates which of
your or my freedoms) non-free software cannot be used commercially,
you cannot charge a fee for the act of distributing Windows, which is
a non-free program for example.  Again, this has nothing to do with
semantics, but about basic rights of a computer user.

   Note that folks like Red Hat use trademark enforcement to embed
   inherent monetary value, and associated redistribution
   restrictions, to their software packages.

Trademark doesn't come into play here.

   If one could copy and redistribute an unmodified Redhat enterprise
   CD, trust me that folks would do so.

You can download RedHat GNU/Linux Enterprise edition from RedHat's FTP
site.

   This isn't a sematics debate. I'm not Alex. I'm a GPL advocate
   trying to get useful information to people.

When giving people useful information, one must correct their
mistakes.  As a GPL advocate you should know that one of the major
misconceptions about the GPL is that it is supposedly not allowed to
use GPL programs in commercially.  And as a GPL advocate, you should
do your outmost to make this mist of confusion vanish.