On 05/09/2008 3:26 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Friday 09 May 2008 01:29:14 pm Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 05/09/2008 2:23 PM, Arc Riley (PySoy Dev) wrote: >>> The recent license change to gplv2 >> Was any particular reason given for the change? The old BSD-style >> license was awfully developer-friendly, especially for a library (IMHO >> using straight GPL makes it harder to build applications on top of the >> library). > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this only an issue if one wants to go the > extremely selfish route of locking up code they were given for free into a > proprietary project?
Why introduce terms like "extremely selfish"? The fact that libjingle was licensed under a BSD-style license in the first place (as many code libraries are) indicates that Google's thinking has changed. I wonder why. Oh, and in my experience the reason libraries are licensed under GPL (not LGPL) is that the developers wish to dual-license the code as GPL and commercial (granting commercial licenses to entities who wish to use the code in building a proprietary project). That, too, could be construed as "selfish". But this is not the place for a flame war about code licensing in general. I'm just wondering why Google made the change they made. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
