Re: Relicensing of Chandler source code

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On May 2, 2006, at 9:26 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> At 06:05 PM 5/2/2006 -0700, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
>> If we use the apache 2.0 license, which is incompatible with the  
>> GPL, wouldn't we then be restricting parcel developers from using  
>> the GPL if they did wish to do so?
>
> Why would Chandler's (non-viral) license stop anyone from licensing  
> their parcel under whatever license they want?  (Including a closed- 
> source commercial license, if they so choose.)

I think because a full GPL license requires linking to other GPL  
code, which Chandler would not be. If this is correct, then parcel  
writers would not be able to use the GPL.

However, I think the LGPL would still be okay, since that does allow  
linking to non-Free software.

Personally, I prefer keeping Chandler Free by using the GPL and doing  
dual-licensing. I am a self-admitted Free Software zealot. :-)

Reid

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFEWMq5Do42Gjya6AURAqzKAJ4iEEdR3glx1RIVrpGxssERnnq6wgCgh2LJ
9ROf2if/prMv+eT8O1JEi3Y=
=QNLv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general