Menu
▾
▴
[Vxl-users] Re: Vxl-users digest, Vol 1 #110 - 4 msgs
|
From: Brendan M. <mc...@cs...> - 2002-09-03 21:20:21
|
In message <E17...@us...>, vxl...@li... writes: > Message: 2 > Reply-To: <ian...@st...> > From: "Ian Scott" <ian...@st...> > To: "'Geoffrey Cross'" <ge...@cr...> > Cc: "Vxl-Users \(E-mail\)" <vxl...@li...> > Subject: RE: [Vxl-users] licence > Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 10:22:08 +0100 > > Unless we misunderstand the GPL license, we (Manchester) would be very > unhappy with using the GPL. We might have to pull out of VXL if that were > the case. We statically link against VXL, and have spin-offs that want to > sell code in a proprietary manner. Even ignoring the spin-offs, we sometimes > give demos away, without giving the source code. > > If you want to pick a widely known license, then the BSD-license might be > more appropriate. > > Ian. The LGPL should allay those concerns as far as I'm aware. It allows third parties to link to a LPGL library without making their own source code public. It seems that for statically linked executables, the important section is this: 6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications. It's a little unclear to me what "... the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use" might mean, but presumably it doesn't mean requiring distribution of source code. Anyway, another license might be more appropriate? -- Cheers, Brendan. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brendan McCane Email: mc...@cs... Department of Computer Science Phone: +64 3 479 8588/8578. University of Otago Fax: +64 3 479 8529 Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand. There's only one catch - Catch 22. |