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

[email protected] wrote:
> MCF, being a different project with different goals, may have (probably does,
> actually) have other goals regarding some of its licensing.

Yeah, the pb we have is that anyone could take the code, modify it for 
his own MCF derived format and pretend it's MCF while it's not. We have 
to avoid forks to ensure compatibility (which is very important). BSD 
can't help in that territory.

>>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.

It is for a software hosted on SourceForge. Otherwise you can't !





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