Hello Tobias, On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Tobias Oetiker wrote:
> Hi Peter, > > Granting an LGPL license to rrdtool would make it very simple to > integrate rrdtool with many non GPL tools. My intent with > publishing rrdtool under the GPL was Don't get me wrong: I'm not advocating the LGPL! Not at all! Lee Thompson aksed about it. All I said is that everybody who contributed some code would have to agree with that move, and I think this obviously is unlikely for several reasons: * You don't want it * I don't want it * ... * ;-) What I said in my last mail was that _I_ would be willing to release _my_ changes to the _update_ code (the initial multi-thread stuff) to a more liberal license, _but nothing else_ (unless I'm proven that it would be a GoodThing(tm)). > a) Make sure that any modifications to rrdtool will be available > under the same liberal license as rrdtool as they are published. > > b) Promote free Software. Since the GPL gives people who want to > access rrdtool from closed-source applications some heavy > thinking (it can be done using the cli and also the scripting > apis and I would not even object to shared library access as > long as the tool itself does not do any graphing and logging > stuff itself.) Ahh, this is exactly what I had in mind: let them update an RRD, but graphing and more elaborate stuff should be out of reach for closed source. And I'm not at all sure about fetch or info. > > I have no interest in preventing other free software from using > rrdtool and if something like php has a license that gives people a > headache over license incompatibility, then I see no gain in this > hence I clarified the situation adding the FLOSS exception. I don't > see it interfearing with the spirit of the GPL (as you can see from > looking at the GPLv3 draft). As for the discussion, on the list > that I missed and I am sorry for this (since most of the work on > rrdtool seems to stay with me the 'developer-community' tends to slip > my minde every now and then). The problem I see with the undiscussed change is that I should now check if any of the "compatible" licenses really are compatible in my sense of how the GPL itself should work. I also always have problems with releases under the GPL "choose the version yourself" terms, as you never know what comes out of it. That said, maybe I get around to think about the implications of your changes. One more thing: I do see _you_ as the Mr RRD, so your thoughts about the licensing matter the most, but such moves should really be discussed before they are made. > > As for the LGPLing rrdtool ... > > Intent a) would still be valid. Intent b) would be weakened, since > LGPL is much easier on the 'consience' and I don't actualy think it > is necessary to make it easy to use rrdtool in closed source > software while I spend all that time on it giving it away for free. > But feel free to make a case for LGPL ... > > The thought about the 'rrd' format is interesting, but I am not > sure the current state is something we should promote all that much > since it is platform dependent and quite rigid regarding > extensibility. > True, but isn't the same true for many other file formats that are far more "successful"? (Waving hands here, as I'm not an expert on file formats...), also: I see most of the power in the consolidation feature, not the file format, and that is also something done during update time... peter -- Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Help mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive http://lists.ee.ethz.ch/rrd-developers WebAdmin http://lists.ee.ethz.ch/lsg2.cgi
