Is there a Gnome license? As I recall, Gnome has a philosophy of "LGPL
is OK for libraries, but apps shold be GPL." That would certainly fit
with what I'm suggesting.
As far as KDE vs Gnome - my suggestion has nothing to do with desktops
or user interfaces or even mapping or graphics. The aprslib I have in
mind is at a far lower level than that - just handling the basic aprs
specification protocol. All the rest is up to the individual
applications that would be built on the aprslib.
-- Jeff, N0JUH
Gerry Creager wrote:
I'd really prefer KDE to Gnome. However: Gnome is already bloated, and
KDE is heading that way.
I'd be happy with Apache, GPLv2 (I'm still not convinced about v3) or
LGPL. LGPL is about the easiest to go with...
gerry
Nick wrote:
I am definitely an extreme novice when it comes to code, but some of
this stuff is rubbing off Curt and on to me.
I decided to look up GPL and LGPL to see what all the banter was about
and I have an idea....How about using GNOME?
Cheers,
Nick
KC7RGL
Tom Russo wrote:
Now, there's one part of my suggestion that might be offensive to
Xastir folks. I think that a core aprslib should NOT be GPL! Open
source, yes, but released under LGPL, BSD, MIT or similar license.
To make the most of the concept, EVERYONE (even commercial
developers) should use this library as the core of their products.
I'd go as far as thinking the library should be LGPL. BSD and MIT
are good
licenses for some purposes, but the idea of allowing a closed-source
fork is not one I think most Xastir developers will be happy with.
I'd agree with them.
_______________________________________________
Xastir mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir
_______________________________________________
Xastir mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir
