>
>Hello,
>
>The cppcms FAQ suggests that the license may be changed from the current LGPL to
>
>something more permissive in the future.
>
Yes, but it is unlikely to happen. Also what would not happen is
change of license to less permissive like GPL.
I believe that LGPL is better license then licenses like MIT, BSD or Boost.
>
>I'd like to link cppcms with proprietary software targeting embedded devices.
>For practical purposes LGPL is not suitable for embedded usage.
>
You basically have two choices:
1. Provide an ability to access to the software to upgrade the CppCMS library
as LGPL requires: i.e.
(a) you should like with shared version of the library
(b) you should give an access to change the library for the device
2. Purchase a special license for your particular case, (i.e. dual licensing)
>
>Are there any plans to change the license to something more permissive in the
>near future?
>
No I don't, however I do have plans for dual licensing of CppCMS exactly
for such case.
So basically you have two choices:
1. Follow LGPL restrictions.
2. Pay for alternative license.
Artyom
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances
and start using them to simplify application deployment and
accelerate your shift to cloud computing.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev
_______________________________________________
Cppcms-users mailing list
Cpp...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cppcms-users
Hi Artyom,
Compliance with the LGPL is not possible as the firmware is fixed (read-only), and we cannot supply the toolchain required to rebuild and deploy a new firmware image to end users.
Do you have a model/fee structure for the alternative license? If this license is reasonable for embedded use in consumer electronics I would like to consider it.
Regards,
Grant.
|
