Antonis Tsolomitis <antonis.tsolomi...@gmail.com> writes: > And what people mean by "LGPL is restrictive" ? Restrictive for who?
For any developer touching the code. > I am mainly a user. And for example the "original BSD" is very restrictive > for my freedom > (and very nice for Apple by the way). > And if such a license was to be chosen, I would have to stop using CDE, and > wait > for someone to fork it and continue with LGPL. BSD 4-clause --- the original BSD license: ---------------------- Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder> All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the <organization>. 4. Neither the name of the <organization> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> ''AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. ----------------------- Which part of this is retrictive for your freedom (I don't see what Apple has to do with it)? Do you intend to: 1) Redistribute source code from which copyright notices have been stripped? 2) Redistribute binaries, without an accompanying license file? 3) Advertise CDE, or technology built on CDE? 4) Endorse products derived from CDE using the names of the copyright holders? What sort of activity are you involved in which the BSD license would prohibit? Are you using CDE in some commercial endeavor? (if so, I'd love to hear about it!) > MIT has many licenses. Do you mean X11? This is OK. To clear things up please > check > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Even this link you provide here says that there's no reason to avoid programs that have been licensed under original BSD. > Apache 2.0 is also a good free license for large projects compatible with > GPL3. > > LGPL is fine. Why change it to a more restrictive for users(!) > license? In what way is MIT, or BSD 4 or 3 clause retrictive for a user? Especially when compared to the LGPL. The whole idea here is to move from a semi-restrictive (copyleft) license to a less retrictive (permissive) license. -- Matthew R. Trower ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ cdesktopenv-devel mailing list cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel
