On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:25 PM, john skaller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Replace project SHALL use LGPL with specified way to specify licence, > E.G. > > Project SHALL specify software licence on Homepage and > SHALL provide LICENCE file in top level of repository. Perhaps. There is a solid reason for mandating xGPL, namely that forks are safe. It's not about restriction but simply about the ability to remix a fork (e.g. it's only thanks to the LGPL that a fork like xs is not really toxic but rather an interesting experiment). > The impact should not be ignored. See Apple vs. GNU: Apple hates the GPL because of its patent clauses. That's not an argument against the GPL, rather it's a success. > But it's a reality that a project NEEDS to be able to change > the licence terms. Sure, but then they're not compliant with a fully remixable code base, which C4 depends on. > FWIW I view GNU licences as archaic, restrictive, counterproductive > dinosaurs Opinions are what they are. I'll never invest money in a non-GPL project because it's lost to my competitors. > Of course you don't have to agree with my view And after 20 years of free and open source software, experimenting with every plausible license variation, I don't. :-) Any community may change its license with approval of every contributor. It's not about voting. 100% of copyright owners must approve. iMatix for one will never accept a change to ZeroMQ's license from LGPL. There is an entry in the FAQ that discusses this BTW, and I'd suggest you read that. -Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
