changing pthreads-win32 license

["Alexander Terekhov" <TEREKHOV at de dot ibm dot com>]

Ross Johnson wrote:
[...]
> But, before guessing, I have to ask you what your issue is 
> exactly with the LGPL. 

My issue with [L]GPL is that FSF "advocates" totally idiotic
("SCOish" so to speak) notion of "derivative work", to begin 
with. This is just one example:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OOPLang

"Subclassing is creating a derivative work. Therefore, the 
 terms of the GPL affect the whole program where you create 
 a subclass of a GPL'ed class. "

Of course, this doesn't make sense and is totally wrong.  The 
real problem with [L]GPL is that both try to go "way too far" 
with the reciprocity provision (quote taken from LGPL, emphasis
added): "the intent is to exercise the right to control the 
distribution of derivative or COLLECTIVE works based on the 
Library". This is what people call "viral effect". Even folks
like creativecommons.org DON'T TRY TO DO THAT.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sa/1.0/legalcode

The problems with [L]GPL are nicely illustrated here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05842.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05865.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05867.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05882.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg05888.html

and also here:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch16s07.html

Now, as for *L*GPL silliness, just read this:

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html

> And especially which license you'd prefer to use. 

The CPL, of course.

http://ntxshape.sourceforge.net/opensource.html

I like this:

"The Lesser GPL used to be called the Library GPL. For 
 historical reasons this license still refers to the software 
 application as "the Library" which can be confusing for 
 licensees. Also, a licensee is allowed to convert the Lesser 
 GPL to a full GPL, after which their enhancements could not 
 be incorporated back into our version of the software. So, 
 for us, LGPL is out. "

Please read this:

http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-cplfaq.html

> There have been a few expressions of interest in changing to 
> another license, such as the BSD license. 

Fine with me. Just take the CPL and remove the reciprocity 
provision.

http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg06420.html

"Reciprocal and non-reciprocal open source licenses ought to 
 be the same -- except with respect to provisions dealing with 
 reciprocity."

Well, I'd have no real problems with the AFL/OSL either, but 
to me, the CPL is better. I like the language/style, to begin 
with. ;-)

> In order to change, I think a concensus of [at least] the major 
> project contributors would be required. 

I think that all contributors will have to agree to license 
their contributions under the new terms in order to change the 
license.

> It's certainly not up to me.

I understand. That's why I'm replying to the list.

regards,
alexander.