-----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
