[sylpheed:35845] Re: Sylpheed

[cgw993 at aol.com]

I am concerned about non free software as everything should be.    I am
getting clarification on what LGPL means currently.  For example, if you
have a program that contains two parts, part A and part B with these
licenses

Part A - LPGL
Part B - GPL

Does there exist any non free software in the program?   If not, then why
doesnt the program just combine parts A and B and have one license that is
GPL?  I may not be understanding the GNU GPL licensing concepts correctly.

-----Original Message-----
From: sylpheed-bounces at sraoss.jp [mailto:sylpheed-bounces at sraoss.jp] On
Behalf Of sm0oojzz+sylph at fastimap.com
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 7:53 AM
To: sylpheed at sraoss.jp
Subject: [sylpheed:35842] Re: Sylpheed

On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 20:47:30 -0700 cgw993 wrote...


> 
> I like Sylpheed.   My only concern is that some of the code is non free I
> guess.   I am hesitant to invest in learning new software unless I know
for
> certain I am not being spied on, that features are not forced on me 
> whenever the developer feels like.  Non free code often can allow this.
> 
> Thx for reading.   Just wanted to rant about Outlook. Microsoft sucks.
> 
> 


If you have concerns about how a developer designs his application, you have
the option of designing or refining your own.  Find an open source MUA and
tweak it to your hearts content.  If this is beyond your abilities, I guess
you have to live with what is available to you for **FREE**.