Re: [xmlvm-users] status and (L)GPL

[Panayotis K. <pan...@pa...>]

> 
> i would say that most code-generating programs will have a problem like this.
> for example, look at the bison (parser generator) exception for the
> generated code:
> http://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Conditions.html
> (really worth the read, too long to quote)
> 

...

> more to this can found on the gpl-faq, which answers to "can i force
> the output of a gpl-program to be gpl as well"?
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput
> it says generally no; this is impossible because the output belongs to
> the user, however, it also says explicitly
> "For instance, part of the output of Bison (see above) would be
> covered by the GNU GPL, if we had not made an exception in this
> specific case."
> this is exactly what i think the problem with xmlvm output is (at this point).
> 


Actually these thoughts have been discussed a lot in the past, and thus the XMLVM project changed license from GPL to LGPL.
Not surprisingly, these were the actual arguments at that time.

From my point of view, still I can't see what the problem is with LGPL (which form my understanding is less restrictive than GPL (even with classpath exeption).
Btw, everybody knows why GNU.org and friends doesn't like LGPL and prefer the more restrictive GPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html