On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 12:50 -0700, Adam Tenderholt wrote:
> > It's just that I'm about to modify all of the license pages now, and
> > want to sort this out before I start doing this.
>
> I still think we should make cclib LGPL. Whether we use LGPL or the
> Python license, we still won't be allowed to use GPL code unless we
> relicense under GPL. And I figure we would never be adding GPL code
> since we're basically writing everything from scratch (except stuff
> we initially wrote under GPL and have since decided to release under
> a different license). So I don't see any advantages using a Python
> license has.
>
> My understanding of the requirements the LGPL would place on
> derivative works is that it would have to be distributed as a library
> under the LGPL and the modifications be available. At least this is
> how it seems things are working between KHTML devs and Apple. Correct
> me if I'm wrong...
>
> Finally, if you have specific issues with using the LGPL let me know.
> I think both of us are relatively flexible, and just have preferences
> based on pre-conceived ideas. If there is any solid reason not to use
> one of the licenses (like we did with the GPL), then I think it
> should be stated and that it only makes sense to use the other.
A very good answer - I think you've summed the situation up exactly. The
LGPL it is, then. I'm happy with this. And I know you are too.
Today, I'll replace COPYING.txt or LICENSE.txt or whatever it's called.
I'll also look into replacing the docstring at the start of every python
file with something succinct as regards the license and copyright. I'm
thinking something along the lines of:
cclib, http://cclib.sf.net, (c) 2006, the cclib development team
cclib is licensed under the LGPL (web ref)
As I mentioned before, it would be useful to have some 'help' text here
also - even something very basic. I don't think this is a priority
before we release 0.5 final (since the web site gives quite reasonable
help), but it's something to bear in mind.
Regards,
Noel
|
