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

[Leon Woestenberg]

Hello Paul,

> I believe the post below misunderstands the issues
> completely.
> 
Thanks for putting it mildly.

> 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.
>
If do understand that the _L_GPL brings this. I
do understand that theoratically it is the nicer
license (apart from the fact that it has been written
in like 15 clauses so that it extends any possible
case in court by an extra two years of lawyers'
expenses).

I agree on stating LGPL is theoratically a better
license. I disagree on the fact that it will benefit
lwIP development in the real world.

Secondly, my thoughts are not with applications alone. 

Consider the case where a party (person/company)
changes the lwipopts.h or arch/cc.h files or even less
subtle files for some purpose.

Should this party be enforced to open-source his
changes and the hassle of adhering all the license
requisites such as managing the public availability
of it's source changes?

Regards,

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