You are correct not to do that, and I probably shouldn't have either since nobody seems to know what crap SCO is going to pull out next. . .

So this must be what it's about....

:D

2damncommon, I thank you for two very interesting articles. Thanks buddy ....

We need a GPL because our platform is not flexible, it can be controlled by one organization or even one person, so the GPL applies to the platform. It is a great license and that's why it is hated by organizations who want to take over the world. The GPL means ownership belongs to the people.

The LGPL is used for libraries, take for example GTK+ and GTKmm. This means that you can link to these libraries (use them) in commercial development. You can sell your closed source applications using LGPL libraries. On the other hand, you can't take over the library, you can't control the library, so you must submit your research to the people if you want to influence the direction of the library itself, and if the submission is accepted than all of the people are benefactors. An organizaton can not steal the libraries, the reasearch, and than market it as their product, the libraries can only be used for solutions, not systems....systems are artifacts that are registered under the GPL.

In other words, look at it this way:
1) Systems belong under the GPL
2) Libraries belong under the LGPL
3) Solutions are what you as the developer build and they can be commercial applications (closed source).

It's all about distributing control and maintaining decentralization of power. We can't have an organization steal the peoples research and developement to build systems designed to control the market and the users. The people have the right to progress.

You can take the peoples research and build a commercial solution, a specialization, but never a generalized system (unless you are willing to GPL).