On Wed, 24 Oct 2012, Derek Gaston wrote: > Between license incompatibility and patent issues it's just a damn > mess!
Yeah; people try to slap licenses or license combinations on their code without really understanding the implications. (Note that I'm not counting libHilbert here: releasing a library under the GPL instead of LGPL might be an accident, but often it's a deliberate decision to try and encourage others to release open source code as well) At least we're not the only ones dumb enough to incorporate potentially conflicting licenses. I flipped through Trilinos (version 10, they may have fixed this since) and came across an even worse example: the COPYRIGHT file for ML says you have an LGPL license, but also says you're prohibited from commercializing it without first notifying DOE. In other words, the license is like the mainline GetPot license: too restrictive to be LGPL-compatible, but the LGPL is the only permission you have to redistribute in the first place, so the license conflicts with *itself*. Basically there's been no license granted that would allow you to redistribute Trilinos-derived binaries unless you compile them with ML disabled, or to distribute GetPot-derived binaries unless you go back and fork from one of the pure-LGPL-licensed versions like we did. --- Roy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
