>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Clarke)
>On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 04:56:04PM -0500, Timm Murray wrote:
>> Following a similar logic, I feel it may be more important that there be
>> widespread use of Freenet clients then protecteing the user's freedoms.
>> Therefore, I propose that there should be an FCP library under the BSD
>> license, along with any other classes nessary (such as Params) to get a
>> working client. Other classes, of course, will be licensed as they allways
>> have been.
>
>It may be neater to put them under the LGPL license, rather than BSD, at
>least that way we can still say we are under Gnu licenses, and I believe
>the two are customised to play nice together.
>
>Ian.
>
I'm not entirely clear about the distinction between LGPL and BSD. Does LGPL
permit static linking or modification of the source code inside a proprietary
program? Also, are we talking about the FCP code inside the node(s), or an
FCP helper library to be linked with the client?
Does communicating with the node over FCP or XML-RPC on a loopback connection
constitute 'linking' for the purposes of the GPL?
--
Benjamin Coates
_______________________________________________
freenet-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
