Skip to main content.
home | support | download

Back to List Archive

Re: Licensing

From: Bill Moseley <moseley(at)not-real.hank.org>
Date: Sat Jun 21 2003 - 15:18:22 GMT
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 11:46:30AM -0700, Lee Thompson wrote:
> Hi,
>  
> I noticed the discussion on licensing never reached a conclusion, has a
> decision been made? 

I asked about GPL vs. LGPL on a number of lists and I got a bunch of 
conflicting answers.  Google could probably find the discussion now.

I find LGPL more ambiguous and the discussion of "libraries" bugs me
because I don't see a difference in using the swish-e library vs. the
swish-e binary.

Every place I asked there was debate about if GPL would force other code
into open source or GPL.  Especially with swish-e where it's possible to
consider it a separate tool.  And there were people that pointed out
that nobody knows because it's never been tested in court.  As I
commented before, the swish-e legal budget is limited.

I prefer GPL, for lack of better understanding of LGPL (and due to the 
confusion I found when asking about LGPL).  I also noticed that 
other similar programs were GPL not LGPL.  A few people also commented 
that a GPL project could be offered with another license by request.  
There were a few examples of projects that have done that, but I can't 
remember those examples at this time.

Now, the only thing that is clear is that I'm happy I'm not a lawyer.


-- 
Bill Moseley
moseley@hank.org
Received on Sat Jun 21 15:18:24 2003