On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Jay 'Eraserhead' Felice wrote: > > > Would it be possible to get agreement from everyone to switch to the > > above licensing scheme? I'd be willing to mod the RPM .spec file so that > > libtn5250 and tn5250 packages are generated separately, if needed. > > I say just go for the LGPL on the whole thing, anyway. The code which we > should be protecting with the GPL is a _very_ small portion, easily rewritten > from scratch by anyone who doesn't like the GPL, and I don't think it's worth > the headache of having multiple licenses.
Can you use the LGPL for non-libraries? The word "library" seems to be used throughout the text of the license. _______________________________________________ This is the Linux 5250 Development Project (LINUX5250) mailing list To post a message email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/linux5250 or email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/linux5250.
