Quoting Balazs Scheidler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Does this mean that the intention is LGPL? That'd clear up things for > me, of course a release with consistent license notations would be more > than appreciated :) >
I wouldn't call it intention. The libdbi project (LGPL) originally contained the MySQL and PostgreSQL drivers which obviously used the same license. I started the libdbi-drivers project with the permission of the original libdbi authors to make my SQLite driver available. I used the GPL because I release just about anything under this license. Later the MySQL and PostgreSQL drivers were moved to the libdbi-drivers project in order to allow independent release cycles (the framework proved more stable than the drivers). At that point neither me nor the libdbi developers paid any attention to the licensing issues. So I guess the LGPL is "intention by numbers", as most drivers now use that license. I've googled a bit to find out about the legal issues involved. Not that I think RMS will go after us, but I wouldn't want to change the license if it were outright illegal. I haven't found authoritative legal advice, but there have been previous cases like this (e.g. libgsf was GPL, is LGPL since 1.8.0). Balazs, is it sufficient for your current project to change the license whenever the next release is due? Or do you need immediate action? regards, Markus -- Markus Hoenicka [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Spam-protected email: replace the quadrupeds with "mhoenicka") http://www.mhoenicka.de ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Libdbi-drivers-devel mailing list Libdbi-drivers-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libdbi-drivers-devel
