Subject: Need arguments Pro LGPL
From: Peter Eriksson <pen@SIGNUM.SE>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 23:45:14 MET DST

I figure Signum can't be the first company having to fight
some peoples dislike for GPL:ing/LGPL:ing software?

We're right now discussing a project with a potential customer
where we want to make parts of the project LGPL'd. The boss of
that company says (approximately) in reply to my proposal:

   "Hmm.. that'll mean that we'll be providing our direct business
    competitors with source, but they'll never in hell provide anything
    similar back to us. Do you think that is correct?"

Do you have any good responses to this type of argumentation?

(He later in his letter seems to accept to make the library LGPL'd,
but I'd rather have him happy and fully accept that we make the
library LGPL'd, than having him accept the LGPL but be sour...)

One thing I miss from the LGPL is a secting demanding that any
written documentation for programs using an LGPL'd library include
the Copyright notice for the library. Something like what the BSD
license demands. I think that is something one would want...
I suppose one could always add a statement with that demand in
the Copyright notice that references to the LGPL in every file.
Any suggestions for a good wording of such a demand?


Peter Eriksson <>			Signum Support AB, Box 2044,
Tel: +46-13-214600, Fax: +46-13-214700		S-58002 Linkvping, Sweden