By the way, some people have mentioned the MIT style licenses. Does anyone know the functional difference between those and the BSD licenses? They seem isomorphic to me, but I get the impression they are not.
Bill. On 16 April 2010 17:15, Cactus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Apr 16, 11:57 am, Sergey Bochkanov <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hello, Bill. >> >> You wrote 16 апреля 2010 г., 12:23:43: >> >> > What you suggest is to effectively maintain two versions of MPIR, one >> > version 2.1 the other 3. >> >> No, quite the opposite. I am talking about plugin-based framework >> where framework itself is 2.1, and some plugins are 3.0, some are 2.1 >> too. Here 'plugin' means either implementation of mpn-function or one >> of the higher layer functions. > > Hi Sergey, > > Unfortunately, its only notionally modular and, is structured > internally rather like a complex wiring loom with a mass of inetrnal > connections and no circuit diagram. > > There is, in my view, no practical way of maintaining a v2+ and a v3+ > library from a single code base unless we put a truly massive effort > into restructuring the code > >> I don't know MPIR's internals good enough, but I thought that library >> is modular: i.e. you can change mpn internals without affecting higher >> layers and you can change implementation of some function without >> affecting another functions. >> >> > We did consider such an option, but it is much harder than it >> > seems, and we simply don't have sufficiently many contributors to >> > manage that, >> >> Could you point me out one or two of the difficulties? May be there is >> a way to workaround them... >> >> > there seems to be a lot of interest in contributing to a BSD >> > licensed library. Another individual I asked about this said they >> > thought it was a great idea and that one of the main things that >> > puts them off currently is the LGPL. >> >> What is wrong with LGPL as long as it is 2.1? Currently I see only one >> drawback - it can't be used in a BSD open source project. However, I >> know of no BSD open source project which may be interested in multiple >> precision. > > In my view the main problem with the LGPL is that it comes from an > organisation - the FSF - that seeks to suggest that there is something > ethically wrong with commercial closed source software. > > The LGPL is not even liked that much by the FSF because it allows such > use and they hence constantly push people towards a GPL license. > Which is fine if you are in this camp. > > But, as Bill has said, this makes commercial users uneasy. In any > event I dislike the license because I am in a completely different > group in that I _want_ my published code to be used commercially and I > want a license that does not only grudgingly allow such use but > encourages this by making it explicit that this is allowed. > > And this makes BSD much better from my point of view than LGPL. > > best regards, > > Brian Gladman > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "mpir-devel" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en.
