Am Montag, 26. Januar 2015 11:30 CET, Urs Liska <[email protected]> schrieb: > Hi all,
Hi Urs, > once again returning to this ever-hot topic ... > > I'm going to release a library with LilyPond code, and I'm not > completely sure which license this should be done with: > > My intentions are: > > * Anybody should be able to *use* the library, that is \include it and > use its functions, even in commercial and closed-source environments > * Anybody should be allowed to modify the library code itself, but > this should be forced to be open source. > > My impression is that the LGPL is created exactly for this purpose. Am I > right with that? Or not? If not, what would be a good alternative? Yes, the second requirement pretty much excludes BSDish licences. But, to be realistic: even with LGPL, the licence only covers _redistribution_ of the code, not use. So, someone changing your library can't be forced to commit back unless he/she redistributes the modified code. HTH Ralf Mattes > TIA > Urs > _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
