Manuel writes:
I don't think that it is a good idea to specify a license. For example, I am convinced that the (L)GPL is the better licence for the community. Incidentally, the GPL is also the license of one of the most successful free software projects ever - Linux - which is certainly also one of the, if not *the* commercially most successful free software project. So, I don't buy this GPL is bad for companies propaganda.
It's not propaganda. The fact is if any of the standard libraries use the LGPL, then some people will be prevented from using them. That's the last thing we want, right? Now you might argue from a moral standpoint that the companies that these people work for are basing their business models on intellectual property and therefore deserve everything they get, but we're not trying to do open source advocacy here, we're just trying to put together a set of libraries that everyone can use. Maybe it's possible to use a dual license (ie. "pick one of the following licenses") scheme, but I'm not a license expert. Cheers, Simon PS. usual employer-related disclaimers apply.