I would agree here, I have seen many companies refuse to use LGPL code. Thomas S. Hatch | Founder, CTO
5272 South College Drive, Suite 301 | Murray, UT 84123 [email protected] | www.saltstack.com <http://saltstack.com/> On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Andreas Kloeckner <[email protected]>wrote: > Ian Ward <[email protected]> writes: > > > Tony Narlock has suggested switching the Urwid license to an MIT or > > BSD license. He's raised some issues with LGPL and the difficulty of > > interpreting it with a Python library like Urwid. > > > > https://github.com/wardi/urwid/issues/41 > > > > I'm not opposed to the idea, but it will involve contacting quite a > > few contributors to get their permission. If some people don't give > > permission then we would have to consider if switching licenses was > > worth removing their work from Urwid. i.e. this is not fun or > > interesting work, but it might be good for the library. > > > > If you have relevant information for this discussion, please add it to > > the ticket above. > > > > I contribute code to proprietary commercial, AGPL, GPL, LGPL, and > > BSD/MIT licensed projects. I'm not interested in the politics of > > licensing, just the practical advantages and disadvantages. I also > > don't want to start a flame war here on our peaceful mailing list. > > FWIW, +1 for MIT/BSD-ish. > > Andreas > > _______________________________________________ > Urwid mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.excess.org/mailman/listinfo/urwid > >
_______________________________________________ Urwid mailing list [email protected] http://lists.excess.org/mailman/listinfo/urwid
