Re: [Bitpim-devel] Licensing (again :-)

[Roger B. <ro...@ro...>]

Stephen Wood wrote:
> V2.0 looks basically OK, but what is the point of section 8.

I have just posted to the Perl licensing list asking about that
using your precise example.  Dunno if I will get an answer.

> happy with this.  I would prefer someone embedding my code to either
> acknowledge my code (the dreaded BSD advertising clause), or make their
> source code open (the viral GPL).

I do very much agree with your sentiments.  The Artistic license is
very strong on distinguishing standard from modified versions,
which is my biggest concern.

The problem with the GPL is that it is "freedom or nothing".  Technically
anything you link in (such as BitPim does with wxWidgets, DSV, libusb,
Python, pySerial, win32all, cx_Freeze) must also be under the GPL.
I don't like the idea of linking to other peoples components and then
effectively relicensing them, although maybe I am misreading the GPL.

However the GPL does seem to be more attractive every day since
it is rigidly "freedom or nothing".  That means no loopholes
or other vagaries.

Ok, as a last shot, how about the LGPL.  It doesn't appear to "infect"
other libraries and components that share the same executable.  Section
5 of the LGPL does make my head spin though.  Section 6 does bring
in the "advertising" which is nice.

Roger