An alternative is to license under both GPL and LGPL - the BBC has done
this for other projects in the past.
Dor example, for libraries/frameworks that we would want others to embed
into their systems; LGPL allows static linking without requiring the code
it links with to also be released under GPL.
Matt
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:57:26 -0000, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 05/12/2007, Brendan Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We haven't used a custom license for releasing code yet, and I don't see
why we should start now...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/licensing.shtml
Fair enough, in that case for this project the BSD or Apache licenses
make
the most sense as to use. The reason being (as I understand it*) that to
use
the GPL would mean that anything written with "Pearl on Rails" would then
have to be licensed using the GPL; this would be grossly unfair to
developers who should be free to license their own software as they see
fit.
*If I am wrong on this point please correct me, the 'viral' part of the
GPL
has always confused me.
Vijay.
--
| Matt Hammond
| Research Engineer, FM&T, BBC, Kingswood Warren, Tadworth, Surrey, UK
| http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
