Just a few words about the license we should chose for this project.
The purpose of this project is to write a library for using Microsoft's DirectShow in the .Net Managed World.
1) We can clame nothing on the DirectShow technology. I havn't read the DirectX license but it's possible that what we do is forbbiden !
2) The purpose of a library is to be use by other software so the license must not be to restrictive.
For exemple, software that use GPL licenced code MUST also be GPL licenced. A less restrictive version of GPL exist -LGPL- specifically made for libraries. Sofware using LGPL code can use any licenses...
Hello, The reason Apache was chosen was because LGPL and GPL were not our best interest, both of which requires the user to also have their code in GPL or LGPL. It would be hard to have commercial software that used the code and participated in the development. Apache is not compatible in that sense because it only requires the user to acknowledge the usage of the software and not require the modification to be open sourced. In general I am not keen on copyleft licenses http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html which forces all mods and extension be free. I will take a look more on PD to see how that works since its not a license
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
This is a free software license, but not a strong copyleft license, because it permits linking with non-free modules. It is compatible with the GNU GPL. We recommend it for special circumstances only.
I believe our situation matches the special circumstances where it's appropriate to use this.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi,
Just a few words about the license we should chose for this project.
The purpose of this project is to write a library for using Microsoft's DirectShow in the .Net Managed World.
1) We can clame nothing on the DirectShow technology. I havn't read the DirectX license but it's possible that what we do is forbbiden !
2) The purpose of a library is to be use by other software so the license must not be to restrictive.
For exemple, software that use GPL licenced code MUST also be GPL licenced. A less restrictive version of GPL exist -LGPL- specifically made for libraries. Sofware using LGPL code can use any licenses...
The only thing i read about Apache License is that it is not GPL compatible (43308 SourceForge project on about 70000 are under the GPL License) : http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/license-list.html
Another choice is the Public Domain. With PD, we claim absolutly nothing on our code.
Your thoughts?
Eric
In the past, LGPL stand for Library GPL...
My main concern is to make library as open as possible and as freely use as possible.
LGPL & Apache License seems to be two good choices...
Hello, The reason Apache was chosen was because LGPL and GPL were not our best interest, both of which requires the user to also have their code in GPL or LGPL. It would be hard to have commercial software that used the code and participated in the development. Apache is not compatible in that sense because it only requires the user to acknowledge the usage of the software and not require the modification to be open sourced. In general I am not keen on copyleft licenses http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html which forces all mods and extension be free. I will take a look more on PD to see how that works since its not a license
You know, this was my understanding too. However, reading http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html, I see this about LGPL:
This is a free software license, but not a strong copyleft license, because it permits linking with non-free modules. It is compatible with the GNU GPL. We recommend it for special circumstances only.
I believe our situation matches the special circumstances where it's appropriate to use this.