Re: Re: L-GPL or BSD license for MCF libraries ?

On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 10:56:00PM +0200, Steve Lhomme wrote:
> Well, the GPL (and LGPL) don't force you to ship the source code WITH 
> the binary, but to make the source code available to everyone that 
> receives the binary (could be after you have paid for the software !). 
> But it can be a website where you can download the source code. I didn't 
> read carefully (again) the license, but that's the "spirit" of the LGPL. 
> So commercial companies wouldn't need to link to their own website but 
> ours, unless they made modifications to the sources.

Actually, the LGPL seems pretty explicit that they themselves must provide the
source code in some way (it can be via a web site, but it has to be from the
_same_ web site that their binary software is available from)

> >   b) Use a dynamic-linking mechanism with a copy of the library "already
> >      present on the user's computer system" (this is rather vague, but implies
> >      that the library cannot be distributed along with the package but must be
> >      installed separately by the user)
> 
> Actually without paraphrasing 6a : "Accompany the work with the complete 
> corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including 
> whatever changes were used in the work". That would mean when you 
> distribute the software...

Yeah, but that's 6a.  We're talking about 6b now.  Basically, the combination
of 6a and 6b appears to say "you can ship it with the source code, or you can
ship it without the source code if you don't inlude the binary for the library
either."

> We have to submit the BXAPL again for approval to the OSI (that's 
> another thing I'm working on ;) very soon. Maybe that could be an 
> option. I don't like the BSD because it gives too much power to big 
> companies, to steal the work. (that's basically what I do at work, using 
> some BSD code to put in a mobile phone)

I actually never personally suggested using the BSD license for MCF stuff..
Christian just seemed to latch onto it early as the only other option (which it
definitely isn't).  I'm currently using BSD for the UCI lib because (a)
adoption of the spec is more important to me than how people use the
(relatively small amount of) code I write to support it, and BSD is guaranteed
to be free of pretty much any political taint which might hinder adoption, and
(b) I don't think it terribly likely that UCI is the sort of thing most folks
would even want to hijack code from anyway, so I doubt it'll ever be much of an
issue.

MCF, being a different project with different goals, may have (probably does,
actually) have other goals regarding some of its licensing.

> Yeah, LGPL doesn't seem so good any longer :(
> And BSD not my taste neither.
> The QPL could be an option or the MPL. They are both quite free, and 
> still are "business oriented".
> The BXAPL is a (good) mix of all this, but not yet OSI approved.

Note that a license doesn't _need_ to be OSI-approved to be useful.. it's
really mainly a formality, as most people don't care whether an open-source
license is "OSI approved" or not, just whether it's open.

> http://www.bixoft.nl/english/license.htm
> 
> (very long to read, but you can just read the Rationale)

Interesting.. I'll take a look at this when I get the chance..

-alex


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf