Re: [Tikiwiki-devel] lightbox2 for Tiki

[luci a. l. d' b. <sf...@gr...>]

hello,

after some searching on the web i believe MIT is no problem to be 
included in LGPL too.
especially when you only link it, keep the credits and the license attached.

see e.g. discussion on 
http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2006/1/24/pick-a-license-for-your-rails-additions
or the http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/freetds/2004q4/017626.html

or search for: MIT LGPL compatible

luci

WEBER Patrice wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I wrote to the author of Lightbox to consider the proposition to have a
> dual-license. The problem is that it is based on prototype which is
> dual-licensed MIT / CC 'by'. The choice for a dual-licence for Lightbox,
> even if the author agree to do this, seems to be quite limited...
>
> In my opinion (but ianal too), the CC Attribution license should not be
> a problem, since we are keeping the license in the code and since we are
> just distributing the code as an option. It has even not been modified.
>
> Tom spoke about the squeez box which has also an MIT license. I'm not
> sure this is really better.
>
> It could be great to have a clear position for those licenses. Mine is
> that it should not be a problem if just called by tiki code, but not
> included in the code.
>
> Nyloth.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tik...@li...
> [mailto:tik...@li...] On Behalf Of
> ste...@ct...
> Sent: Tuesday 29 May 2007 09:34
> To: Tikiwiki developers
> Subject: Re: [Tikiwiki-devel] lightbox2 for Tiki
>
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 11:14:40PM -0400, Marc Laporte wrote 4.4K:
>   
>> However, we need to make sure the license is OK. It is licensed under 
>> the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
>> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
>> I do not know if this is compatible with Tiki's LGPL. In any case, we 
>> can simply ask them to dual license. Background info:
>> http://tikiwiki.org/LibLicense
>>
>> Anybody know about CC vs GNU license compatibility?
>>     
>
> iirc according to RMS CC is not Free. because there are restrictions
> like the
> nc - non-commercial, which violates freedom in general. 
> Lessig has some blog entry about this issue:
> http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5709
>
> in this particular case only the 'by' condition of the cc is used, which
> could
> be ok, but ianal.
> debian mailing list has a good overview - result: problems
> http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
>
> btw why would you license code under a data license? 
>
> there is some discussion about gpl vs cc on wikipedia as well, there
> this is a
> much greater problem.
>
> first the confusion must increase before the fog clears :)
> bye,s
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
> Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
> control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
> http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
> _______________________________________________
> Tikiwiki-devel mailing list
> Tik...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-devel
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
> Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
> control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
> http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
> _______________________________________________
> Tikiwiki-devel mailing list
> Tik...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-devel
>
>