Hi Christopher > The GPL vs BSD issue certainly can be contentious.
I totally agree. :-) > Ptolemy is released under the BSD license. I'm aware of this. [...] > That said, Kepler is free to ship under any license that is ok'd by > the leadership team. ?And module developers can ship under any license > that they would like, though if a module is created with a GPL or AGPL > license, then that module could not be included in Kepler if Kepler > is shipped with a BSD license. > > We've spent quite a bit of time discussing BSD vs GPL over the years. > Some of the conversation might be in the kepler-dev archives. > > Edward and I are discussing various ways that we could include > GPL'd code. ?One idea is to have a non-GPL version and then > a GPL version. ?This would result in more work at release time. > > Currently, I'm quite committed to keeping the core of Ptolemy (the execution > engine) free of GPL'd code. ?This could change in the future. Just a thought: instead of having the BSD preamble in each file, wouldn't it be easier to just provide a pointer to the license file? That would make releasing under several licenses easier. Maybe, you could even (ab-)use Subversion's properties mechanism to indicate whether certain source code is GPL-dependent or not, using this in the release process. Cheers, Peter -- Peter Reutemann, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Waikato, NZ http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/ Ph. +64 (7) 858-5174
