-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, June 04, 2001 11:04 PM
Subject: RE: [freenet-tech] FCP library licensing
>>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?
It's rather complicated, but basicly the LGPL allows linking with LGPL'd
source code in some instances without the entire program being LGPL'd. BSD
says you can do anything you want, just give the orginal author credit.
Static linking to an LGPL'd library is permited within a proprietary program
(IIRC).
>
>Does communicating with the node over FCP or XML-RPC on a loopback
connection
>constitute 'linking' for the purposes of the GPL?
Well, if a web server is put under the GPL, does that mean any web browsers
that connect to it must be under the GPL, too? I don't think so, and I
don't see how these situations are diffrent.
_______________________________________________
freenet-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
