Re: [Cppcms-users] cppcms license change?

[Grant G. <gr...@gr...>]

> 
>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.