I wrote a library in ruby (http://hans.fugal.net/src/ruby-wx). In the spirit of release early release often, I released it as soon as it had basic functionality. As I usually do, I slapped on a GPL license by default and decided to think about licensing later.
One individual who is a convert from parseltongue is considering contributing to the library (he worked on a similar library in python), but he's not keen on releasing his work under the GPL. So later has became sooner, which can only be good. What I'd like is to release it under something conceptually equivalent to the LGPL. That is, you should be able to use the library for any purpose you like including proprietary software. IOW it isn't viral. But I do want any changes to the library (which are distributed) to be opened up. The problem is that the language in the LGPL doesn't really make much sense for interpreted languages. Java has faced this/is facing this: http://slashdot.org/developers/03/07/17/2257224.shtml The LISP[1] folks have a preamble approach: http://opensource.franz.com/preamble.html The LISP terminology is closer to Ruby than C, but there's still some oddball things that don't map cleanly. What do you all think? Is there a license out there like the LGPL but geared toward interpreted languages? Feel free to blather on about how you shouldn't consider anything but the GPL, or how even the LGPL is too restrictive and we should all use a BSD-like license, or how only the public domain is truly righteous. I do reserve the right to ignore you. Thanks 1. Just teasing you, Levi -- Hans Fugal ; http://hans.fugal.net There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. -- Johann Sebastian Bach
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
