Talk:Lucent Public License

— JIP | Talk 05:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect

This is great and all, but merely copy-pasting the text of a public liscense doesn't make it encyclopedic. Some actual encyclopedic information needs to be added to this article. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The Article states that the licence is not competable with the GPL, and its not free software, the plan9 article on the contrast, states that this is OS and FS!!--Mayz 12:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is serioudly confused and mixes the LPL with a very old license an old release of Plan 9 was done under, I have removed the incorrent references and comments, but I agree this article should probably die as the Plan 9 article already covers this Lost Goblin 02:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Examples of software using it

Plan9 and Galaxquery are the only ones I can find so far. Others? Jontajonta (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The FSF quote statement is biased

"incompatible with the GNU GPL because of its choice of law clause". Well, I'd say that it's incompatible with GPL because GPL has been designed to be incompatible with anything that is not its subset. So saying that the incompatibility is LPL's fault is at very least one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.14.118.246 (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The relevant statement is a direct quote from the FSF about its claim that the LPL is not "GPL compatible", so there's not really any reasonable way to change that text. Perhaps some additional text can be added to the article referring to a statement that the noted incompatibility arises because the strong copyleft nature of the GPL effectively disqualifies GPLed works from being combined with other works under licenses whose terms do not constitute a strict subset of the GPL, because those other licenses are then not able to be distributed under the GPL as a derivative work license (because doing so allows the original license, in this case the LPL, to be violated). - Apotheon (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lucent Public License. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000815065020/https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html to https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)