Re: [Config4gnu-developer] Re: libconf status

[Justin Y. <ju...@sk...>]

On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 04:01, dams wrote:

> There is a cvs repository here:
> 
> http://cvsweb.tuxfamily.org/cvs/src/?cvsroot=ugtk
> 
> The files to get are:
> libconf.pm  <- the lib
> test_conf.pl  <- test program
> templates <- the direcory containing the templates.
> 
> This cvs is too slow, so it will be moved somewhere else, either on sf.net or
> on gentoo.org

This CVS seems to be only web-based.  Is that the case?  It would be
much easier to access it via normal CVS.  Also, can we have write access
to it, or do you prefer we send you diffs?

> > 
> > Jason wrote a basic converter to XML and I was wondering if you would
> > prefer this so that the perl structures can still be used by libconf, or
> > if you would accept changes that made libconf natively output XML.
> 
> It depends how it's done. xml converter seems fine for now.

OK, we'll do the XML converter for now.  I guess it shouldn't be too
much slower anyway.

> > I also just noticed that libconf is released under the GPL.  Is there
> > any particular reason why you chose that over the LGPL, or do you have
> > anything against using the LGPL?  We had chosen the LGPL so that other
> > software (commercial or otherwise) could use CFG, but I don't pretend to
> > fully understand the whole licensing mess.  My basic understanding is
> > that the LGPL is less restrictive but maybe you have some insight from
> > working w/ Mandrake.
> 
> I think LGPL is not that good, because it allows people to use your work
> without give back to you or the community. The fact that the GPL is viral is
> something I actually like :)

What are the implications of libconf being GPL while CFG is LGPL?  Does
a program using CFG then also use libconf, requiring it to be GPL, or
does going through CFG allow it to be non-GPL?  

Justin

-- 
SkiingYAC.com
Custom Solutions
su...@sk...
http://www.SkiingYAC.com