[lwip-users] RE: Re: [lwip] Should LwIP go (L)GPL ?

[Troy \(Office PC\)]

We need the pointy haired boss to hire us geeks a lawyer to debate this
:-)

Troy Melquist Founder
REDCELLX SOFTWARE
www.redcellx.com
408 SW 2nd ave
suite 412
Portland Oregon 97204 USA
503 295 9680

-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of M. R.
Brown
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 12:45 PM
To: address@hidden
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: Re: [lwip] Should LwIP go (L)GPL ?

* Paul Sheer <address@hidden> on Fri, Oct 18, 2002:

> I believe the post below misunderstands the issues
> completely.
> 
[...]
> 
> The GPL license forces changes to be submitted,
> but also forces any code that links with LwIP
> to also be free. Companies would not be allowed
> to create applications based on LwIP and keep
> those applications secret from their competetors.
> Hence, practically no company would be interested
> in this.
> 
> The LGPL also forces changes to be submitted,
> but allows code to be linked that is proprietary.
> So a company can use LwIP and still keep its
> applications secret that link with LwIP.
> 

This is a common misconception with the *GPL.  GPL/LGPL does _not_ force
you to submit your modifications upstream.  You only have to provide
source
if it is requested AND only to those who you distribute the binary to.
If Company A modifies lwIP directly and never distributes the
application
externally, guess what?  You won't see their changes (and there's
nothing to
force them to give them to you).  Even if Company A sells a modified
GPL/LGPL lwIP to Company B, Company B is _not_ obligated to give you
those
modifications either.

Sorry to jump into this off-topic useless thread, but I see far too many
mis{representations,understandings} of the *GPL these days.

M. R.

[This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]