Am 26.01.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Mattes:
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.
Ah, yes, I'm aware of that.
But that's OK for me. What I wouldn't want is someone redistributing a
modified version in a commercial package.
So this points to LGPL being OK?
Urs
HTH Ralf Mattes
TIA
Urs
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
