Re: [binarycloud-dev] LGPL

[Robert W. <rob...@fr...>]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

On Thursday 14 June 2001  5:15 am, alex black wisely wrote:
> hi all,
>
> I'm leaning heavily towards releasing all r2 code under the LGPL:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
>
> does anyone have opinions on that?
>
> note some stuff:
>     -the r1 license header will be much smaller:
> * -License    LGPL     (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html)
>
>     -all contributors of _complete_ components retain copyright on those
> components. (i.e. you don't get copyright for fixing a bug, :)
>     -all authors who are responsible for 20% or more of a document will be
> credited
>     -all individual authors retain copyright on work
>     -all corporations retain copyright on work.
>
> obviously that assumes that the work is published under the LGPL under the
> auspices of the binarycloud consortium.
>
> -------
>
> The above has a number of ramifications:
>     -modifications to binarycloud core, and some user stuff, if
> distributed, must be free (per lgpl)
>     -BUT, unlike r1, no permission from turing is required for use, and all
> of the code may be integrated into commercial products _so_long_ as proper
> credit is given. the credit will be to the binarycloud consortium, not
> specific organizations (to avoid the whole
> original-bsd-license-credit-nightmare-list problem.)
>
> this is a significant change, but I think it's appropriate given the
> evolution of the sysem.
>
> please, any and all comments/flames/rants/etc...
>
> _alex
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> binarycloud-dev mailing list
> bin...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/binarycloud-dev